Military Review

Statistics of sea battles

164



Comments of random visitors to the “Fleet” section are often not encouraging with originality. Readers focus on a couple of known cases, forgetting to analyze the whole picture. And then, on the basis of this, completely wrong conclusions are drawn. It becomes even a shame for the shipbuilders of the past, whose great creations in one instant are written into the incapable and useless trash.

Shattering volleys

As an example, the death of large and well-protected ships from artillery fire is usually given by the “Hood” and “Invincible”. Only a couple of successful salvos, and the sea giants went to the bottom, even without having time to revenge the enemy.

The Invincible example loses its obviousness when it comes to the full statistics of the Battle of Jutland. The British lost three battlecruisers (Invincible, Indifatible, Queen Mary), the Kaiser fleet lost one (Lutz).

Why did the stars side with the Germans? What explains the threefold difference in the number of losses?

The explanation must be sought not in horoscopes, but in the construction of ships. On the left is the German Derflinger type LKR. On the right is the British Invincible. And do not ask stupid questions.

Statistics of sea battles


All three British losses were caused by detonation, with the total loss of crews and ships.

LKR “Luttsov” received 24 powerful hits with large-caliber projectiles (305, 343 and 381 mm) and slowly sank in the night. Destroyers managed to remove the 90% of its crew.

So it turned out that the British, having made a bet on speed and firepower (the best defense is attack), ended up on the seabed. German battlecruisers were able to withstand more hits and as a result destroy the enemy.

It is noteworthy that in the grand meat grinder Jutland not a single super-dreadnought was killed. Slower, but much better protected battleships, however hard they tried, could not destroy each other. The British “Worspite” received 13 280-mm German projectile hits (equivalent to 305 mm), and the total number of holes he shattered from close blasts and smaller-caliber shells was 150. Despite the hells being shot, the “Worspite” remained in the ranks, and the losses of its crew amounted to 14 killed, 16 injured (of the 1100 aboard). He will set the heat to the Germans in World War II.


Damage to the "Worspite"


As for the battle cruiser “Hood”, there is nothing shameful about his death. Linear cruiser early 20's. clashed with a high-speed battleship of the late generation. The 76 mm deck could not bear the blow of the 380-mm yubersnaryad.

Death from a height

Aviation bombed battleships a lot and often. And only once she managed to “stick up” a heavy ship and put it to the bottom. This ship was the Italian Roma.

It is much less known that two bombs fell in the “Roma”. The second blow came in the area of ​​the engine room, where the ammunition cellars were detonated from the outbreak of fire. Why "macaroni" did not extinguish the fire? There is no consensus. According to one of the versions, the demoralized crew left the fighting posts. For the Italians, the war has already ended - the battleship was going to surrender to Malta.

The third little-known fact: on the same day “Fritz” got into the same type “Littorio”. The battleship flinched and ... exploded. Safely reached Malta, where he went to Egypt.

The third was the “Worspite” mentioned in the article, in which a pair of Fritsev landed (a direct hit and an 300 explosion kg of explosives at the side). The explosions did not add to his beauty, “Worspite” lost his turn. Only good news was that the crew’s irretrievable loss was 9 seafarers (0,8%). Six months later, the renovated battleship first opened fire on the fortifications in Normandy.


The Fritz X Superbomb is the equivalent of 460-mm art. projectile. With a length of more than three meters, it had a mass of 1362 kg. The thickness of the walls in the ogival part - 15 cm steel. The mass of explosives - 300 kg. Thanks to the “Fritz” radio correction, falling from a height of 6 km, it developed the transonic speed (280 m / s) and had the opportunity to get into a moving ship.

During the Spice bombing, two armor-piercing bombs dropped by Flying Fortresses were moored at the wall of the Vittorio Veneto LK. According to its characteristics, these “blanks” corresponded to the German “Fritz” (mass one ton, height of discharge 4-6 km). The attack had no result. The battleship was repaired in a month.

In total for the entire war, the Italian LC “Roma” became the only casual victim of bomber aviation. The exception confirmed the general rule: it is almost impossible to destroy a large highly protected ship with an air bomb.

“But what about Tirpitz, Marat and Arizona?” - skeptics exclaim indignantly. And they will be wrong.

All the above examples are so disgusting that a reminder of them gives a completely opposite result.

“Hyuga” - A battlecruiser launched at the end of the war in the 4 category, received 10 + direct hits and many close breaks during the bombardment of the naval forces of Kure 1945 in July. It sank in shallow water from numerous leaks in its hull.

“Ise” 24 July 1945 received five hits. Four days later, during the 9 hourly bombardment of Kure, eleven 1000-fnl got into the battleship. bombs dropped by multi-purpose fighters "Corsair". Ship in exhaustion sank to the bottom.

“Harun” He suffered the fate of “Hyuga” and “Ise”. Nine hits bombs.



“Tirpitz”, tormented by underwater mines and dozens of British air raids, was eventually packed with Tollboy 5-ton bombs. All less exotic means turned against Tirpitz ineffective.

"Arizona". The horizontal booking of the dreadnought of the 1915 of the year was not difficult for the 800-kg bomb converted from the 356 mm armor-piercing projectile. While "Arizona" was the only one of the battleships of Pearl Harbor, sunk in this way.

“Marat”. There is not a single parameter by which it can be seriously compared with battleships of the later period. Break the 30-mm deck - das ist niht bezonders.

All of them were sunk in the bases. All except “Tirpitz” were rusting buckets built at the turn of the century. At the time of their death, the Japanese ships were wounded in battle and left hundreds of thousands of fire miles astern.

Still, for their destruction had to use an impressive amount of ammunition. Under normal conditions, in the open sea, with the presence of modern air defense, it would be impossible to repeat these results.

The only chance is to destroy the hull below the waterline.

Torpedo collapse

In the years of the Second World War, 24 battleships were hit by torpedo strikes (despite the fact that “they didn’t fight and stood the whole war in the bases”).

And only twice in the war was a single torpedo able to cause serious damage. The wedged Bismarck steering wheel and bent propeller shafts of the LC Richelieu. While the details of the incident in Dakar remain a mystery. The French battleship and the British aircraft carrier were anchored. In the morning the British raised a squadron and attacked “Richelieu”. On the night before the torpedo attack, they scattered depth charges around the 15 battleship, and the torpedo warhead blast probably initiated the detonation of the charges lying at the bottom. The effect of the explosion was further enhanced by the shallow depth of the bay.

Just a couple of cases, of which one is clearly inadequate, against the backdrop of dozens of naval battles of World War II. And then the “eksperty” on the example of “Bismarck” will prove the failure of large warships. Of course, they simply do not know about other cases.

Of the 24 episodes mentioned, 13 ended in a shipwreck. Death always came from two reasons. The first is the lack of anti-torpedo protection (Congo, Fuso, Barham, Royal Oak, Republics, Oklahoma, Nevada, California, V. Virginia). All these were the dreadnoughts of the First World War, the creators of which did not suspect the rapid evolution of submarines and torpedo bombers.



The reader will probably ask - how did Nevada, California and V. fall into the list of the dead? Virginia ”who were repaired and returned to service? Without going into much detail, we note that those Pearl Harbor victims received serious injuries and lay on the ground (stranded). Diver sent for inspection “V. Virginia ”(7 torpedo hits) passed through a hole without noticing the body of the battleship. According to legend, the hopeless ship was restored only because the former commander of the battleship was among the command of the base.

At this lyrical digression ends and again goes hard statistics.

The second group of battleships died from a completely wild number of torpedoes fired at them. “Scharnhorst” - 11 hits. “Musashi” - 20. For sinking the Japanese giants had to use the whole air army. According to the testimony of participants in those events, the position of “Musashi” became hopeless only after the sixth torpedo hit. And this is only because the attacks continued, and the capabilities of its PTZ and counter-flood systems were practically exhausted. Hordes of planes stoked “Musashi” for 9 hours. And he resisted to the last and continued to crawl under its own power. Great ship.

The death of the Prince of Wales LC (3 torpedoes) stands apart. The weakest battleships of the late period had a clearly insufficient PTZ, for which he paid. To top it all off, the explosion of the second torpedo bent the propeller shaft. Revolving, he “stirred” the entire feed part, accelerating the flow of water.

At the same time, little-known incidents with “Littorio”, “Vittorio Veneto”, “North Caroline”, “Yamato” (meeting with the submarine “Skate” in 1943) showed the obvious. A large and durable ship with a well-developed PTZ cannot be disabled by hitting one or two torpedoes. The consequence will be only a slight decrease in combat effectiveness, and on returning to the base - short-term repairs (from several weeks to a couple of months).

Against the background of such statistics, the example of damage to the “Bismarck” looks unconvincing.

Epilogue. The author sincerely hopes that this material was interesting to everyone who is fond of the naval theme. The indicated facts give a fundamentally different shade. stories about “Bismarck and whatnot” and “ingloriously lost Yamato”. The main conclusion is this: it was necessary to make incredible efforts to neutralize large, well-protected ships.

Occasionally, problems arose for those in whose design the threats of the new time were not fully taken into account. Those who were built later turned out to be practically indestructible in the usual ways.


Tests of the anti-flooding system of the battleship Fuso, naval base Kure, April 1941
Author:
164 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Mera joota
    Mera joota 26 November 2015 06: 43 New
    +1
    The main conclusion is this: it was necessary to make incredible efforts to neutralize large, well-protected ships.

    This was due to the fact that the probability of hitting the target depended on many factors, one of which (the most important) is human. At present, the role of man has greatly decreased and depends a lot on technology.
    The situation of Musashi vs aviation can be lost as of today, the result will be the same despite the fact that the number of aircraft required much less.
    1. qwert
      qwert 26 November 2015 09: 42 New
      16
      One can argue with Oleg Kaptsov .... but not in this case hi All right. And then we are accustomed to represent the American battleships with the perfection of security, and the Japanese, German and other European ships are somehow wretched. But no. The history of their sinking shows that they were very stable warships, at least no worse than their Zaokensky colleagues
      1. Delta
        Delta 26 November 2015 20: 56 New
        +5
        Quote: qwert
        One can argue with Oleg Kaptsov .... but not in this case hi


        that's right, huh? no, I won’t argue with Kaptsov, I have long known about the futility of this lesson. But to indicate that he is a forger is necessary. This article is not so obvious, but it is clear that he really wants it. I will give examples:

        The British “Worspite” received 13 hits with 280-mm German shells (equivalent to 305 mm), and the total number of holes it had for fragments of nearby explosions and shells of a smaller caliber was 150. Despite the hell of firing, “Worspite” remained in service, and the loss of its crew amounted to 14 killed, 16 wounded (out of 1100 on board). He will also set the heat for the Germans in World War II.

        Further in the text of the article, we see that the battleships of the WWI times, it turns out, were not protected at all, and therefore it is impossible to consider their armor serious. This (according to Kaptsov) is a serious justification for losses among battleships built during the WWII. But the Worspite (the same construction years as the “cardboard” LCs) for some reason didn’t get here. He’s done well.
        The following is a list of recessed battleships, which (according to Kaptsov's dislocated logic) “do not count”:
        The Hyuuga, a battlecruiser withdrawn to the 4th category reserve by the end of the war, received 10+ direct hits and many close explosions during the bombing of the Navy Kure in July 1945. It sank in shallow water from numerous leaks in its hull.

        “Ise” July 24, 1945 received five hits. Four days later, during the 9-hour bombardment of Kure, eleven 1000-fn. bombs dropped by Corsair multipurpose fighters. The ship sank to exhaustion.

        “Harunu” he befell the fate of “Hyugi” and “Ise”. Nine hits of air bombs.
        Tirpitz, tormented by underwater mines and dozens of British air raids, was eventually bombarded with 5-ton Tollboy bombs. All less exotic remedies were ineffective against Tirpitz.

        "Arizona". Horizontal booking of the dreadnought of 1915 was not difficult for an 800-kg bomb converted from a 356 mm armor-piercing projectile. Moreover, “Arizona” was the only one of the battleships of Pearl Harbor, sunk in this way.


        One of the important (according to Kaptsov) arguments we hear the following: And only twice during the whole war a single torpedo was able to cause serious damage.

        But for some reason he doesn’t want to explain why actually need to drown the battleship ONE torpedo. What kind of sport is this. For some reason, I think that once drowned, then drowned. The method is not important, the result is important. And he does not say that his booked monster “Invulnerable”, from the open spaces of lovers of alternative history, would also not have survived the numerous hits of torpedoes (missiles, bombs), because there are no unsinkable ships. He does not say that there are any examples of the type of aircraft carrier Yorktown, which got decently (two torpedoes under the curtain), and he drowned LLC for a very long time (oh, without armor, the villain did not drown right away) even a dime a dozen.
        1. Delta
          Delta 26 November 2015 21: 16 New
          +5
          but it just smiled:
          Of the 24 episodes mentioned, 13 ended in a shipwreck. Death has always come from two causes. First: lack of anti-torpedo protection (“Congo”, “Fuso”, “Barham”, “Royal Oak”, “Ripals”, “Oklahoma”, “Nevada”, “California”, “V. Virginia”). All of these were World War I dreadnoughts, whose creators were unaware of the rapid evolution of submarines and torpedo bombers.
          I also understand "Congo", Ripals "(by the way, both CRUISERS, and not" dreadnought "), although they once went through modernization to increase reservations, but put in here" Oklahoma "," California "... hmm .. Oklahoma had anti-torpedo boules, California initially (compared to Tennessee with its prototype) increased anti-torpedo protection. But this is not even important. And the fact that most of the listed ships went into service a couple of years after the famous attack Veddigen, who showed the whole world the threat of submarines and torpedoes. All this says, (to everyone except Kaptsov), that how many do not book, but you can still drown
          1. Santa Fe
            27 November 2015 09: 01 New
            -3
            Quote: Delta
            “California” ... hmm ... “Oklahoma” had anti-torpedo boules, “California” initially (compared to “Tennessee” - its prototype) increased anti-torpedo protection.

            These are all half measures

            the result is obvious, the facts of the explosion of only two or three torpedoes caused critical clearance and / or ammunition detonation
            that’s the whole price of these “upgrades” and “installed bulyas” (what width? what design? what is the midsection thickness? okay, and what is the thickness of the PTZ in the area of ​​bow / stern towers of the main gun?)

            On battleships of the WWII era, such cases have not been established
    2. Civil
      Civil 26 November 2015 12: 14 New
      +8
      All this, of course, is wonderful, but what combat missions were completed? What did they decide these big iron ships?
      1. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 26 November 2015 21: 22 New
        +4
        Quote: Civil
        What combat missions were completed? What did they decide these big iron ships?

        As Bismarck escaped into the Atlantic, and all the Allied convoys stopped, the English fleet of the open sea turned to search for a German raider. You can imagine greater efficiency: one pocket battleship fetters the actions of the entire GB fleet.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 November 2015 21: 46 New
          +8
          Quote: BoA KAA
          You can imagine greater efficiency: one pocket battleship fetters the actions of the entire GB fleet.

          Dear KAA, Bismarck was not a pocket battleship :))) Pocket battleships were Deutschland, Spee, Sheer (displacement grew from ship to ship from 10 to 12 thousand tons standard and from 14 to 16 - full). And Bismarck had 51 thousand tons of full displacement and was a full-fledged battleship
        2. Scraptor
          Scraptor 27 November 2015 15: 40 New
          0
          and then drowns, with a crew of 2000 for serving only 8 GK cannons, which fire only 36,5 km instead of a radius of 880 mm P-1000s per 1000 km, or even larger for carrier-based aircraft ...
    3. Pilat2009
      Pilat2009 26 November 2015 16: 29 New
      +2
      It is interesting that the author rests on obsolete ships, they say rusty troughs a priori go to the bottom, But if we had 10 Yamato, we would show .... But in any fleet there are ancient ships, no one will write off the ship while it goes, especially in war conditions, when each unit counts. It’s expensive to upgrade the fleet every 10-15 years.
      "Against the backdrop of such statistics, the example with the damage to the Bismarck looks unconvincing." -Yes, the damage to the chassis is largely accidental, but you will not hide the screws and the steering wheel with an armored belt, this is the most vulnerable spot. By the way, he received critical damage from artillery fire
      Quote: Civil
      and what combat missions were completed? What did they decide these big iron ships?

      The English covered the convoys, the German were looking for an opportunity to pat them
      1. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 26 November 2015 21: 44 New
        +7
        Quote: Pilat2009
        By the way, he received critical damage from artillery fire

        Bismarck fired art, holding a bunch of English battleships at a respectful distance, until the ammunition ran out. The battleship burned, but remained afloat. The British finished it with torpedoes.
        "- According to a survey of surviving members of his team, the German LK was hit three times by English shells: one of them hit the starboard side in the bow, making an underwater hole (water flooded three compartments); 2-th - aft, in the main armor belt, having displaced slabs (one compartment was flooded); 3 staked the deck without exploding and only destroyed the motor boat.Some of the respondents claimed that the hits were from the 3 th volley “Hood”, others believed that the 2 th hit the Bismarck - The work of "Prince of Wales".
        "By 10.15, all guns on the Bicmarck were silentbut the order to flood the LC was issued a quarter of an hour before this moment. The necessary actions were led by senior assistant commander of the LC, frigate-captain G. Oels (H. Oels) and corvette-captain E. Jareis (E. Jahreis).
        Approached a distance near 3000 m KPT "Dorsetshire" in 10.25 fired two torpedoes on Bismarck, one of which exploded under the bridge, then, approaching another 1000 m, one more, already from the port side.
        In the 10.36 in the German LC, an explosion of the feed cellars followed, the feed plunged into the water and in the 10.40 “Bismarck”, turning over with a keel and sinking ... "
        This is history. Do not add, do not decrease. And there’s nothing to invent here.
        Sincerely. hi
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 November 2015 21: 57 New
          0
          Quote: BoA KAA
          Bismarck fired art, holding a pack of English batships at a respectful distance

          In fact, it was like this - Bismarck could not maneuver, he could not even keep heading (scoured). Therefore, reasonable Englishmen came to him from the nose and attacked with all the power of their artillery (six 406-mm Rodney guns and the same number of 356-mm guns King George 5 against four 380-mm Bismarck) He could not turn around to bring the stern towers into battle. And then everything went very quickly - Bismarck and Rodney shot at almost the same time, but this time the British were lucky - and their hits soon destroyed the bow tower and the bow fire control post. This is an accident, but after that the battle turned into a beating. Bismarck still had the opportunity to snap back when the British entered the reach of his stern towers, but even then the stern fire control post was disabled literally through the 4 volley.
          In general, in this battle, fortune fully recouped on the Germans for the sinking of Hood
    4. Malkor
      Malkor 26 November 2015 16: 53 New
      +3

      notice 56 second
      1. snc
        snc 27 November 2015 09: 44 New
        0
        X-55SM, and what?
  2. D-Master
    D-Master 26 November 2015 06: 53 New
    23
    Thanks for the great article. Battleships especially built during the 2 world war are wonderful examples of the achievement of mankind. Thousands of tons of steel could withstand anything. And the destruction of the battleship was not a very trivial task.
    In October 1944, the Musashi battleship was continuously attacked by dozens of American carrier-based aircraft for several hours and sank, only getting hit by 20 (!) Torpedoes and 17 (!) Air bombs weighing 454 and 908 kg. To sink the Yamato battleship, the Americans took to the air 226 (!) bombers and torpedo bombers. This is more than all aircraft of these types attacked all American battleships in Pearl Harbor!
    Examples of testing American nuclear weapons against captured battleships are very interesting:
    steel structures weighing thousands of tons turned out to be less vulnerable to the damaging factors of nuclear weapons. The main reason for the death of the ships on the Bikini was not so much the explosions themselves as the absence of any struggle for survivability (due to the absence of crews on board). No one extinguished fires, did not close holes and did not pump out water. As a result, the ships, having stood for several days, weeks and even months, were gradually filled with water, turned over and went to the bottom. The very sight of the gigantic water column at the site of the explosion certainly produced a frightening impression. However, all subsequent events in one way or another refute the widespread notion of the absolute destructive power of nuclear weapons. Having sustained two terrible blows (the Able air blast and, three weeks later, the underwater Baker), he quietly capsized on the night of July 29 1946. During the first explosion, Nagato was less than 900 meters from the epicenter (power was 23 kilotons), but escaped with only moderate damage. The paint was charred on the sides, the light structures of the superstructure were deformed, and the “gun-maid” on the upper deck was killed by a flash. However, this did not threaten the loss of combat effectiveness. A group of specialists boarded the “Nagato”, as an experiment, launched one of the boilers in the engine room, which worked non-stop for the next 36 hours. The ship retained buoyancy, speed, power supply and the ability to fire the main and medium caliber!

    The second explosion thundered under water at 690 meters on the starboard side, causing “Nagato” terrible damage in the underwater part - huge holes through which surging streams of water burst inside! What will those who watched the deadly agony of the battleship tell? Immediately after the explosion, a “dangerous” roll was registered in 2 ° to starboard. Toward evening the flooding of the compartments took on an “irreversible character”, the roll increased to an incredible 8 °. Later, experts will establish that at least 8 tons of sea water (700% of its total displacement!) Had to pour in to create a roll at 1,5 ° in Nagato. 700 tons for the hours that have passed since the explosion of 10 means that the average water flow rate was ~ 70 tons per hour. In other words, the second nuclear explosion (23 kilotons) in the immediate vicinity of the battleship, influenced it a little more than in any way. 70 tons per hour - an emergency batch could eliminate such a problem in the shortest possible time.
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 26 November 2015 07: 21 New
      +2
      an emergency batch could fix such a problem in no time at all.

      If the emergency party, like the team itself, would have survived. A powerful light pulse could blind a part of the crew, cause burns throughout the body, a shock wave could damage superstructures and break the arms and legs of another part of the crew. A powerful x-ray in the first hour after the explosion would have put another part on the bunks.
      What kind of combat capability are we talking about?
      1. barbiturate
        barbiturate 26 November 2015 13: 05 New
        +7
        You are wrong, you do not need to exaggerate too much nuclear weapons. Part of the crew would certainly suffer, only very small, which of the crew sticks out on deck in a combat situation? Everything under armor is basically. The add-ons are also basically intact, which would break everyone there, given that people in such a situation instinctively hide and lie on the floor.
        Powerful X-rays are significantly attenuated in shelters and under armor. Doses the crew would have grabbed decent, but by no means fatal. After several hours after the detonation of a nuclear charge, the ship was examined by hundreds of people, went up to the deck and nothing. The amount of fissile material is very small to create powerful and long-lasting x-rays. You can recall Chernobyl, where neutron fluxes were generally huge, but firefighters worked their shift and did not die right away.
        1. Scraptor
          Scraptor 26 November 2015 13: 09 New
          +2
          On tests it turned out different ...
        2. Wedmak
          Wedmak 26 November 2015 13: 26 New
          +1
          Part of the crew would certainly suffer, only very small, which of the crew sticks out on deck in a combat situation?

          That is, you do not take into account the shock wave? The battleship will shake decently, so there is a chance both to break the arm and leg. And break my head.

          After several hours after the detonation of a nuclear charge, the ship was examined by hundreds of people, went up to the deck and nothing.

          Are you seriously? Did someone take measurements? And by the way, was the explosion underwater, surface or air? What type was YAB? This is the question of the amount of fissile material and radiation.

          You can recall Chernobyl, there neutron fluxes were generally huge, but firefighters worked their shift

          There the workers worked for 10 minutes, in lead aprons. And everything was done RUN! To get as little dose as possible. And still got it. Because it is not visible where the phonite is more, and where less. But you need to consider that this was the liquidation of the accident, any delay was worth the lives of other people living around the station. This is the first. Second: How much equipment was used there? Decontamination of the territory from helicopters, tanks broke the rubble, do you know that ISU-152 was used there? And for this armor, people also received doses. And all of them were masked and changed protective equipment constantly.
          Now transfer to the ship. Let him withstand a close explosion. But now he has HELL going on deck. Fires, everything is smoking, instruments and equipment are failing, radiation of great intensity passed into the steel sheathing and now secondary radiation is shining throughout the ship. Add-ons are crumpled, deformed, antenna posts are destroyed. And nowhere to run. And protective suits to replace no or few. What and how are you going to fix it?
          1. Riv
            Riv 26 November 2015 15: 27 New
            +1
            In fact, there will simply be no one to fix it. Imagine that you are sitting in a metal box. The box is lifted and shaken with an amplitude of three meters and a speed of thirty meters per second. As a result, the entire filling of the box is evenly mixed with you.
            But the point is not even the consequences of a close nuclear explosion. Battleship has a strictly defined niche. Its mission is to fight with other ships. To storm ground fortifications with his guns is too expensive a pleasure, and besides, it does not guarantee victory. Google Allied operation in the Dardanelles. All these disputes about how the battleship is well opposed to aviation have the appearance of children's romp in the sandbox.
            1. barbiturate
              barbiturate 27 November 2015 06: 32 New
              +1
              Where did such characteristics in amplitude and rate of change of this amplitude come from?
          2. 97110
            97110 26 November 2015 23: 21 New
            +2
            Quote: Wedmak
            There the workers worked for 10 minutes, in lead aprons.

            I was measured (like all other partisans) in December 1986 1,5 minutes. We cleaned the roof of 3 blocks under a shovel. And removed non-working robots from it. I did not see workers. And the "St. John's Wort" too. X-ray aprons touched us directly. Miracle protects the rubber apron from the crumbs from the masonry of the reactor and fragments of the fuel rods lying under your feet.
            1. alex86
              alex86 28 November 2015 22: 06 New
              +1
              In September-October 86, I was on the roof of the SSRO 4 blocks without any aprons, doing garbage like dumping trash (graphite and everything) into the blockage (for those who are not in the know, this is where the 4 block fell out), it was not ours, but they sent, our people worked for about 5 minutes, I climbed in order to understand what to do and how much time I could work. There were never any replaceable protective suits - usual cotton and a respirator - "petal".
            2. Secta
              Secta haki 28 November 2015 22: 23 New
              +1
              And how do robots work in nuclear weapons factories?
          3. barbiturate
            barbiturate 27 November 2015 06: 30 New
            +1
            Quote: Wedmak
            That is, you do not take into account the shock wave? The battleship will shake decently, so there is a chance both to break the arm and leg. And break my head.


            There is always a chance without an explosion in a peaceful environment.

            Quote: Wedmak
            Are you seriously? Did someone take measurements? And by the way, was the explosion underwater, surface or air? What type was YAB? This is the question of the amount of fissile material and radiation.


            Seriously, there is a photo of people on deck and taking pictures calmly there with smiles on their faces, and none of them died from any radiation. The bomb was not very perfect and had a lot of fissile material, compared to modern ammunition, but look at the type of explosion and so on, along with the photo, you write that everyone would come with a kayuk.

            Quote: Wedmak
            There the workers worked for 10 minutes, in lead aprons. And everything was done RUN! To get as little dose as possible. And still got it. Because it is not visible where the phonite is more, and where less. But you need to consider that this was the liquidation of the accident, any delay was worth the lives of other people living around the station. This is the first. Second: How much equipment was used there? Decontamination of the territory from helicopters, tanks broke the rubble, do you know that ISU-152 was used there? And for this armor, people also received doses. And all of them were masked and changed protective equipment constantly.


            The doses were huge, but they hurt and died for many years and not all. Therefore, the crew will have enough forces to eliminate the consequences of a nuclear warhead undermining, that's what I talked about. A person, even grabbing a few lethal doses, does not immediately go to bed.

            Quote: Wedmak
            Now transfer to the ship. Let him withstand a close explosion. But now he has HELL going on deck. Fires, everything is smoking, instruments and equipment are failing, radiation of great intensity passed into the steel sheathing and now secondary radiation is shining throughout the ship. Add-ons are crumpled, deformed, antenna posts are destroyed. And nowhere to run. And protective suits to replace no or few. What and how are you going to fix it?


            Well, why tell such a thing, very much like theatrical about ABP)) After all, everything is already known, there were close bombings more than once. No hell, no great blockages and fires. I already spoke about radiation. Here is a bunch of photos, why not look? On the battleships all the superstructures in place, etc. no great fires, on the ship ready for battle, there is nothing much to burn, especially from the outside, etc.
        3. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm 26 November 2015 15: 44 New
          0
          Quote: barbiturate
          You are wrong, you do not need to exaggerate too much nuclear weapons. Part of the crew would certainly suffer, only very small, which of the crew sticks out on deck in a combat situation? Everything under armor is basically. The add-ons are also basically intact, which would break everyone there, given that people in such a situation instinctively hide and lie on the floor.
          Powerful X-rays are significantly attenuated in shelters and under armor. Doses the crew would have grabbed decent, but by no means fatal.

          You refer to 1946 where they blew 20 kt, and there they examined a week later when the light isotopes decayed.
          Then everything became much darker.
          1. barbiturate
            barbiturate 27 November 2015 06: 34 New
            +3
            It was about maintaining the combat effectiveness of the ship and the ability of the crew to fight for its survivability, I believe that such an opportunity was and will be when using nuclear weapons.
    2. Avenich
      Avenich 26 November 2015 08: 17 New
      +3
      Quote: D-Master
      an emergency batch could fix such a problem in no time at all.

      An emergency party at that time would be dead, 35% of the experimental animals died immediately at the time of the explosion. The fate of others is still unknown.
      Quote: D-Master
      900 meters from the epicenter (capacity was 23 kilotons)

      The bomb dropped off a kilometer from the ship with medium power, the ship stood nose to explosion, and received damage. For ships that were on board to the epicenter, the consequences were much sadder
      1. barbiturate
        barbiturate 27 November 2015 07: 36 New
        +1
        Quote: Avenich
        An emergency party at that time would be dead, 35% of the experimental animals died immediately at the time of the explosion. The fate of others is still unknown.


        Well, why are you obviously not telling the truth? "10% of the animals were killed by an explosion, 15% from an outbreak of radiation, 10% died subsequently. A total of 35% of the animals died directly from the explosion or radiation." There is a link to an authoritative source and you don’t have to go anywhere, the usual Wikipedia is enough. That is, the animals on the deck were affected, and by no means all of them died far from immediately. The fate of others - survived, it is directly written there, why not tell the truth?

        Quote: Avenich
        The bomb dropped off a kilometer from the ship with medium power, the ship stood nose to explosion, and received damage. For ships that were on board to the epicenter, the consequences were much sadder


        Naturally, everything depends on who and how stood and at what distance, but large armored ships withstood nuclear explosions without any fatal consequences if they were not in the center of the explosion.
    3. Operator
      Operator 26 November 2015 11: 27 New
      0
      What will happen to the battleship after the direct hit of an 152 / 155 mm projectile with a nuclear charge of 1,5 CT?
      1. Scraptor
        Scraptor 26 November 2015 11: 37 New
        +4
        everything that remains will glow beautifully at night ... lol
      2. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 26 November 2015 22: 31 New
        +1
        Quote: Operator
        What will happen to the battleship after the direct hit of an 152 / 155 mm projectile with a nuclear charge of 1,5 CT?
        Nothing! The caliber is not the same: it all starts with 203,2.
        1. Operator
          Operator 27 November 2015 00: 27 New
          0
          Good - but after a direct hit by an 203,2 mm projectile with a nuclear charge of 2,2 Kt?
        2. Scraptor
          Scraptor 27 November 2015 08: 59 New
          +1
          Co 155mm - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M109_howitzer
          1. Operator
            Operator 27 November 2015 09: 43 New
            +1
            One and a half kilo nuclear munition - 152-mm projectile 3BV3 "Linkorput" am
            1. Scraptor
              Scraptor 27 November 2015 10: 11 New
              +1
              this is how secrets are drawn ... wink

              such an ordinary 850-mm fool under the keel (P-700) and then two of his “Washington” halves can humanely swim separately from each other. wassat

              True, the author of the article reasonably objects that "there was one battleship and a herd of two" crying
              1. Kars
                Kars 27 November 2015 10: 33 New
                +3
                Quote: Scraptor
                what a regular 850-mm fool under the keel (P-700)

                A good target for battleship defense, in addition, you can’t count on a mass volley. There are not so many carriers for such a fool.
                Quote: Operator
                152-mm shell 3BV3 "Battleship

                and not armored ships will probably survive easier?
                1. Scraptor
                  Scraptor 27 November 2015 10: 50 New
                  0
                  the target is just "heavy", all ships with a displacement of less than 7 tons? they are launched by a group, just read about them ...

                  and with a close detonation, it makes almost no difference, therefore a counter-atomic order is used.
                2. Operator
                  Operator 27 November 2015 16: 22 New
                  0
                  Unarmored ships will survive a nuclear missile attack due to their larger number compared to the number of LCs (for the same money).

                  The future is in nanotechnology laughing
                  1. Kars
                    Kars 27 November 2015 19: 34 New
                    +2
                    Quote: Scraptor
                    the target is just "heavy"

                    why heavy? the dimensions of granite-basatalt are large
                    Quote: Scraptor
                    they are launched by a group, just read about them ...

                    I read in a small group.
                    Quote: Operator
                    Unarmored ships will survive a nuclear missile attack due to their larger number compared to the number of LCs (for the same money).

                    Well, yes, instead of one battleship, you can build 1,2 Zumvolta
                    1. Operator
                      Operator 27 November 2015 19: 40 New
                      0
                      LK displacement 60 Kt, armed with the Zumvolt type displacement 15 Kt, will cost four times more.
                    2. Scraptor
                      Scraptor 27 November 2015 21: 39 New
                      0
                      because it stumbles hard

                      probably read somewhere not there
    4. brn521
      brn521 26 November 2015 11: 36 New
      0
      Quote: D-Master
      In other words, the second nuclear explosion (23 kilotons) in the immediate vicinity of the battleship, influenced it a little more than in any way.

      This has already been discussed. We replace the ancient clapper in 23 kt with a modern again clapper in 150 kt and the issue is resolved.
    5. Scraptor
      Scraptor 26 November 2015 12: 00 New
      +2
      Have you already decided to fight nuclear battleships? fool
      1. brn521
        brn521 26 November 2015 12: 50 New
        0
        Quote: Scraptor
        Have you already decided to fight nuclear battleships? fool

        And it already was.
        Of course they decided, and not me, but those military analysts, thanks to whose decisions the battleships are no longer being built. Battleships were built primarily with the aim of solving those military-political problems for which nuclear weapons are now used. Even the corresponding treaties were signed - the Washington Maritime Agreement (1922). For many WWII ships, the design was not determined by the search for maximum efficiency, but by maneuvering under this agreement.
        And fears about a possible global war with the use of nuclear weapons drop, was also discussed. Underwater explosions, only a high-explosive effect is used. Neither the territory nor the population suffer damage. 90% or more, depending on the depth of the blast, the entire radiation is absorbed by the ocean.
        1. Scraptor
          Scraptor 26 November 2015 13: 34 New
          0
          So there are no fears - and so everything goes to her ...

          with the rest except for the Washington treaties - I do not agree, or understood. laughing
    6. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 November 2015 17: 41 New
      +7
      Quote: D-Master
      Thanks for the great article.

      Yeah, the article is really “great”
      As one friend said: “Since there’s not much time, I’ll briefly explain it”
      The article is simply ugly. Blinded on her knee for half an evening, and as a result - contains a trillion errors. There is no time to paint in details (maybe, later I will unsubscribe in more detail if there is such a need) but in short:
      1) English battlecruisers.
      As an example of the death of large and well-protected ships from artillery fire, they usually cite “Hood” and “Invincible”.

      To put it mildly - not true. 99,9% of the literature just reports that the Invincible (like the other two British battlecruisers in Jutland) died due to insufficient booking. The remaining 0,1% of the sources report a much more realistic explanation - the British did not die because of poor booking, but because of the lack of a system to prevent fire from entering the cellars (the Germans initially did not have one, but Dogger Bank taught) and the disgusting British gunpowder, prone to detonation (where German burned out, English exploded)
      As for the battle cruiser “Hood”, there is nothing shameful about his death. Linear cruiser early 20's. clashed with a high-speed battleship of the late generation. The 76 mm deck could not bear the blow of the 380-mm yubersnaryad.

      Again not true. The path along which the German shell passed has still not been known. The Jurens study, which can be considered exemplary, allows 3 possible trajectories. The first is the penetration of the main armored belt (305 mm), 51 mm of the bevel and 51 mm of the cellar roof (which is extremely unlikely, since at an 80-90 KBT distance from which the armor penetration was made for the 380-mm projectile beyond the limits possible). The second is a breakdown of the upper armored belt (178 mm) and two armored decks - 76 and 51 mm., Which is also practically beyond the scope of the possible - the projectile, having lost a fair amount of speed when breaking through the 178 mm armor, would have to ricochet from the horizontal armor plate. And there is a third trajectory that in the best way explains the death of the Hood - the hit of a shell “under the skirt” - i.e. the shell fell into the water near the side, dived and went BELOW the main armored belt (there the Hud’s side was covered only by three-inch armor). Against this option, it says that such a hit is extremely unlikely. No, the shell could well fall “under the armored belt” (just the same it could - such hits were not uncommon in WWII), the problem is that with such a hit the shell should not have been charged (for example, a shell that fell “under the skirt” “Prince of Wells "in the same battle did not burst). Most likely, “Hood” destroyed a defective German shell, and this was an extremely happy case for the Germans. Or the armor of the “Mighty Hood” (and only so it is called in England) was broken.
      But both of these conclusions of Oleg are not satisfied. He does not need confirmation that the battleship can be destroyed by artillery fire and that no armor is a hindrance to this (the first two versions of the Hud’s death). He also does not need an illustration of the fact that even very powerful armor does not serve as an absolute defense and the ship can be destroyed without breaking through the armor (this is if the “Hood” was hit “under the skirt”) Accordingly, Oleg, without too much effort, comes up with a third option - about miserable British 76 mm and German prodigies.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 November 2015 17: 42 New
        +4
        The British “Warspite” received 13 hits of 280-mm German shells (equivalent to 305 mm),

        Firstly, it’s very interesting since when did 300 kg 280 mm shell become the equivalent of 386 kg English, 405 kg German or 471 kg Russian 305 mm shells. And secondly - 305-mm shells actually got into Worspite.
        Despite the hells of the shooting, “Worspite” remained in service

        What is surprising - the British battlecruiser Lyon received about the same amount (12) of hits from more powerful 305-mm shells, but it didn’t leave the battle. As a result, the British battlecruiser, having much weaker reservations, withstood the “hellfire” no worse than a superdreadnought. Moreover, if you “ride on top”, as Kaptsov does, it turns out that the lightly armored battlecruiser withstood shelling BETTER than the heavily armored superdreadnought. The Lion, unlike the Worspite, did not lose either speed (up to 16 knots) or control (the Worspite jammed the steering wheel, which made the ship uncontrollable and rolled onto the German dreadnought system, although they managed to quickly fix the steering wheel quickly). However, this comparison contradicts Oleg’s thesis that armor is our everything, and that does not fit Oleg’s theory for him.
        Further, Oleg begins to break into the open gate - he proves to everyone and everyone how ineffective the bombing of battleships was. Generally speaking, the “discovery” was late for 70. That horizontal bombers were extremely rare, and dive bombers carried too small bombs to cause decisive damage to the battleship, it has been common knowledge since WWII. But even here Oleg managed to nudge and here
        The third little-known fact: on the same day, “Fritz” hit the same type of “Littorio”. The battleship flinched and ... exploded. Safely reached Malta, from where he headed to Egypt.

        There is only one fact - Oleg completely lost all respect for the readers and engaged in outright hoax. For those who know about the entry of Fritz into Littorio also know WHERE this bomb hit. In fact, the bomb landed in the very edge of the deck near the side, flew overboard (the deck was broken and the side above the armored belt), crashed into the water and exploded there - OUTSIDE the battleship, 6 meters from the hull. However, this turned out to be enough for the pride of the Italian fleet to accept 1000 tons of water.
        It is impossible to comment on Oleg’s “Revelations” about the bombing and torpedoing of battleships without a strong word, but unfortunately, there is no time for a thorough refutation - maybe later.
        1. Rurikovich
          Rurikovich 26 November 2015 18: 35 New
          +6
          I totally agree with you! good
          The main leitmotif of all articles on the topic of booking comrade. Kaptsova is that all modern shipbuilders, designers, customers, naval commanders are suckers, because they do not understand salvation from all troubles, that is, armor. At the same time, he manages to advance and prove this from article to article under any cover ... So here - if you write a hundred times that armor is what you need, then, in theory, everyone should not only believe, but also announce Comrade Kaptsova Messiah lol The logic is murderous request
          My personal opinion is that booking is a more or less adequate opposition to a projectile only on condition of an ACCIDENTAL hit! It is worth accepting it and everything will fall into place. In all duels of artillery ships, this factor of chance plays a paramount role, which is why ships were defended in such a way as to cover the most important parts of the ship and preserve buoyancy. In any case, the adversary has the goal of GOING ON THE SHIP! And where the projectile hits is already a factor of chance. Well, if you fought at a distance in a pair of cable ones, then I still believe that they were aiming either at the tower, or at the cabin, or somewhere else. But at the battle distances of the WWII and WWII, no other alternative could have been dreamed of. And the ships received their "portion" of shells or torpedoes only as a result of a long battle. This is where the quality of the armor manifested itself withstanding a certain amount of metal and explosives. And Jutland, and the hunt for “Bismarck” and other battles (almost all) prove that the ships were killed not from aiming at vulnerable parts, but EXACTLY from random !!! This is the whole point of the problem of justifying the availability of reservations on a ship !!! With a change in the very essence of armaments, when RCC is no longer RANDOM, but a LICENSE option of getting into a ship, the validity of armor on corals has changed. A missile will fall in any case (roughly speaking) and the program will make it get to where thick armor cannot be put on physical principles. Therefore, the result was the desire to prevent such a hit. Which is equivalent to armor. Kaptsov cannot understand this well. These tasks have changed - the options for solving it have also changed ... hi
          1. Scraptor
            Scraptor 26 November 2015 18: 46 New
            +2
            Or a conventional acoustic homing torpedo or rocket torpedo into the screws of a battleship or its steering.
            1. Rurikovich
              Rurikovich 26 November 2015 20: 56 New
              0
              Quote: Scraptor
              Or a conventional acoustic homing torpedo or rocket torpedo into the screws of a battleship or its steering.

              It’s now, and it’s about WWII smile
              1. Scraptor
                Scraptor 26 November 2015 22: 29 New
                0
                Acoustic torpedoes then appeared.
          2. Rurikovich
            Rurikovich 26 November 2015 19: 05 New
            +2
            ALL battles, battles after about 1880-90. prove the statement of randomness in the confrontation between armor and shell. The pattern of falling into any part is traced during long duels of fleets (ships), when the quantity itself is already turning into quality. After all, the more you knock on the door, the more likely you are to break through it. And if by chance you get on thinner boards, then this will happen earlier. Therefore, the ships were killed from successful ACCIDENTAL hits, or from prolonged execution. This also applies to confrontation with aviation. This explains the strange comparison of injuries and their consequences, the weakest in thickness of the Lion’s armor and the thick-skinned Warspite - hitting the battleship was more “successful” than in the battlecruiser. Almost ALL outcomes of many battles are explained by this accident, while regularities in the results are achieved even with other factors. When quantity goes into quality. Examples are “Prince of Wales” with “Ripals”, the same “Yamato” and “Musashi”, “Scharnhorst” ... And in many other cases, the usual “successful hit” sounds - the death of “Hood”, “Roma”, “ Bismarck "...
            Here, even this same article by Oleg can be served with a different sauce, start not to talk about the superiority of armor, but about the superiority of shells and torpedoes in case of accidental (or time-honored) hits, which will fundamentally change the essence, then the deaths of all the ships described will become more clear as a result of losing armor to attack means.
            But Kaptsova will not be happy with it either. After all, he loves to manipulate the substitution of concepts wink
            hi
            1. Scraptor
              Scraptor 26 November 2015 20: 52 New
              0
              It was no coincidence that Fritz-X got into Roma, many of which are actually Japanese like American pieces.
              1. Rurikovich
                Rurikovich 26 November 2015 20: 58 New
                +1
                Quote: Scraptor
                It’s not by chance that Fritz-X got into Roma,

                albeit not by chance, but fell into the SHIP, and not into some part of the ship specially designated for this. Moreover, it was not a controllable, but rather an adjustable planning bomb
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 November 2015 21: 39 New
                  +1
                  Of course, getting into some particular part of the ship with artillery fire or even an air bomb is completely impossible (unless a dive) hi
                2. Scraptor
                  Scraptor 26 November 2015 22: 31 New
                  0
                  How many of them were dropped on him and how many planes participated in the raid? Got where they aimed, controlling her joystick (in Russian - a joystick, a brush).
            2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 November 2015 21: 38 New
              +2
              Greetings, dear namesake!
              Quote: Rurikovich
              Tim also explains a strange comparison of injuries and their consequences, the weakest in thickness of the Lion’s armor and the thick-skinned Warspite — getting into the battleship was more “successful” than in the battlecruiser.

              That's right. In fact, in order to compare ship damage, it is necessary to analyze what kind of damage the same Lyon would have received if it had been hit by exactly those shells and exactly where and at Worthspite. Comparing damage to the British and Germans is generally very difficult - they used different types of shells. The Germans preferred armor-piercing, while the British preferred semi-armor-piercing (that is, exploding at the moment of armor breakdown or immediately after it. As a result, the British shells made extensive holes and damage visible to the eye, but often did not go deep into the ship and did not cause decisive damage. Then the British repented, and made valuable armor-fighting, but this happened after the PMV.
              Quote: Rurikovich
              .A regularities in the results are already achieved with other factors. When quantity goes into quality. Examples - Prince of Wales with Ripals

              Generally speaking, with the “Prince of Wells”, the Japanese turned out to be pure luck - a double torpedo hit + damage to the propeller shaft, which gouged everything, rotating, violating the tightness of the ship compartments. As a result, the ship quickly turned off without power, and its defensive capabilities were reduced to zero.
              Quote: Rurikovich
              Here, even the same article by Oleg can be served with a different sauce, start not to talk about the superiority of the armor, but about the superiority of shells and torpedoes in case of accidental (or regular in time) hits

              Yes easily. Oleg grabbed the facts, generously diluted them with his own imagination and - please shave. With the same argument (but with a different presentation), one can easily justify that booking is absolutely unnecessary :))) drinks
              1. Rurikovich
                Rurikovich 26 November 2015 22: 21 New
                +1
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                In essence, in order to compare ship damage, it is necessary to analyze what kind of damage the same Lyon would have received if it had been hit by exactly those shells and exactly where and in Worthspite. Comparing damage to the British and Germans is generally very difficult - they used different types of shells. The Germans preferred armor-piercing, while the British preferred semi-armor-piercing (that is, exploding at the moment of armor breakdown or immediately after it. As a result, the British shells made extensive holes and damage visible to the eye, but often did not go deep into the ship and did not cause decisive damage. Then the British repented, and made valuable armor-fighting, but this happened after the PMV.

                But all these, and many others, quite logical, are simply ignored, or, to put it mildly, interpreted differently. In addition, I only note that the Germans therefore suffered less losses under Jutland, not only due to the squadron qualities of their ships, but also to many omissions the British themselves. Although there is something to sin - the battlefield remains for the last
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Generally speaking, with the “Prince of Wells”, the Japanese turned out to be pure luck - a double torpedo hit + damage to the propeller shaft, which gouged everything, rotating, violating the tightness of the ship compartments. As a result, the ship quickly turned off without power, and its defensive capabilities were reduced to zero.

                I agree. But most likely he would still be drowned. For the Japanese were not going to stop, and there was plenty of daylight
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Yes easily. Oleg grabbed the facts, generously diluted them with his own imagination and - please shave. With the same argument (but with a different presentation), one can easily justify that booking is absolutely unnecessary :)))

                good drinks hi
      2. The comment was deleted.
  3. Wedmak
    Wedmak 26 November 2015 07: 03 New
    +1
    So nobody seems to dispute historical facts. But the question is, how long would such a battleship last against supersonic anti-ship missiles? Just do not talk about the frailty of the RCC itself. If the enemy has armored cruisers and battleships, appropriate means of attack are created accordingly. And rightly said above. In the 1 and 2 world wars, the accuracy of the strikes depended on the person, how firmly the pilot or gunner kept his sight. Now, anti-ship missiles can enter the galley’s porthole and exit through the porthole from the other side. And nobody canceled cluster charges.
    That is why the task of designing is not to withstand the blow, but to prevent it.
    1. Ruslan
      Ruslan 26 November 2015 07: 38 New
      +3
      Well, so the modern battleship will not be with a bare booty. zrk to choose from, zpu with smart shells, eb, traps. and how many pcr will get after that? therefore, not everything is so simple and there is a rational kernel in the position of the author.
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 26 November 2015 07: 49 New
        +1
        therefore, not everything is so simple and there is a rational kernel in the position of the author.

        True, not everything is clear. But any ship has a limitation, the displacement is called. So if you put armor, it will be a very, very difficult choice between armor and weapons. If you put both this and that in large quantities, what will we get? Giant clumsy battleship. As he crawls to the battlefield, everything will already be done by smaller, lighter and well-armed cruisers.
        And yes ... it’s not a pity to spend a nuclear charge on such a goal, by a direct hit, simply evaporating part of its structures. And to deliver such a charge under water, under a slowly crawling superlinkor, well, no problem at all.
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. Scraptor
            Scraptor 26 November 2015 08: 30 New
            +2
            Most of the battleships in WWII were drowned not in artillery dueling, but by air strikes with heavy bombs (now this will be done with aeroballistic missiles) or with mine-torpedo weapons. And this and that was not tactical nuclear weapons, and continuous heavy booking somehow did not help ...
          2. Wedmak
            Wedmak 26 November 2015 09: 00 New
            +1
            you have a one-sided position of some kind. why clumsy? why crawls?

            Because it’s clumsy. 15-17 thousand tons - this is now nifiga not a battleship. Well, how do you not understand that you can’t cram the unbearable. Either light armor and a bunch of weapons, or thick armor and a dozen rockets. Well, the battleship like Yamato of modern RCC attack will not stand. All his air defense was controlled by people, now a person is not able to effectively counter missiles. Even if you stick machines instead of people, it again increases the mass. And with an increase in mass, more powerful engines will be required, and they need a place, displacement will increase, which will cause new expenses for covering new volumes with armor, which again will cause an increase in the mass of the ship.
            So what should be the displacement of the ship to combine high speed, maneuverability, the presence of powerful weapons and armor?
            Here all the spears break. And in full growth the question arises of the energy supply of the ship itself and the effectiveness of its weapons.
            1. Ruslan
              Ruslan 26 November 2015 10: 00 New
              +1
              what clumsiness is that? because that's all? despite all the modern twists and turns, for maneuvering ships and ships. well, you know better, drove through.
              battleship, cruiser what's the difference? then destroyers, not destroyers, since torpedoes and mines are not the main weapon, and the size does not correspond even more so. and why are you so keen to contrast archaic ships with modern missiles and planes? I immediately wrote the battleship (cruiser) of the 21st century. those. the same dering, arly burke, pots with only armor.
              here the machines will control the air defense. I am sure from my amateur glade that there is no armor because the ships are seen as a disposable weapon that will not fight. and not because of the impossibility of installing it and some great difficulties in the construction of armored ships.
              what will be this ship can only be said by designing it. but if you take Des Moines, mentioned by Kaptsov, replace the art.tower with missiles, probably 200 pieces will get into the UVP, well, in accordance with it, replace other systems. there will be an approximate idea of ​​his appearance. If you take the technical characteristics of the arliber in weapons, then the ship will surely be much smaller.
              in any case, I repeat, the ships do so that they are not threatened with big battles, therefore they can save on their construction and they really do not need armor. I also think that it is necessary to rivet the ships according to the previous scheme, minor threats are not a reason to sculpt armor, the war does not threaten them. but at the same time I understand the position of the author, in the desire to book ships, making them thereby more adapted for a real war and increasing the crew’s chances of salvation.
              1. Wedmak
                Wedmak 26 November 2015 11: 18 New
                +1
                what clumsiness is that? because that's all?

                I wrote to you that for increasing the mass of the ship will have to put a more powerful power plant. That is, we increase the inertia of the ship - it will not be able to stop quickly, it will not be able to perform a sharp maneuver. Just because it’s very heavy.
                the same dering, arly burke, pots with only armor.

                Yeah, again. If there was armor, the ship would be much larger in size.
                but if you take de Mois, mentioned by Kaptsov, replace the art tower with missiles, probably 200 pieces will crawl into

                Not so simple. Missiles may fit in, but where to put the guidance equipment? Again on the masts? How to protect her? Armor does not work, do not expect. Well, we were bothered, they set up anti-aircraft defense machines. So they weigh decently, they need ammunition, and again guidance systems.
                in any case, I repeat, the ships do so that they are not threatened by big battles

                Modern ships do the calculation of the greatest firepower. Then comes versatility or specific specialization. And only then passive protection. Note not constructive, but passive.
                Because the whole naval battle comes down to "whoever saw the enemy first, he won." Within reach of his weapons of course. And no armor against a dozen RCCs will help. Only air defense that is on board.
            2. Kars
              Kars 26 November 2015 13: 45 New
              +3
              Quote: Wedmak
              Either light armor and a bunch of weapons, or thick armor and a dozen rockets

              Did someone hold the new Washington Sea Treaty?
              1. Wedmak
                Wedmak 26 November 2015 14: 02 New
                0
                Did someone hold the new Washington Sea Treaty?

                I generally reasoned theoretically. Without regard to contracts.
          3. Kalmar
            Kalmar 26 November 2015 09: 31 New
            +3
            Quote: ruslan
            but they don’t fall apart from a pair of LRASM

            And you don’t have to break it down. If this same LRASM pair manages to take out the antenna posts, depriving the ship of a clear air defense, then further action will automatically turn into a leisurely shooting of a sedentary (relative to RCC) target.

            Quote: ruslan
            Well, they’ll apply tiao, don’t give back ... t?

            What's the problem? For example, the USSR Navy relied heavily on a peaceful atom in matters related to the removal of imperialist aircraft carrier formations. In the end, the cost of 5 kt warhead compared to the whole cruiser is low, but such a warhead will not leave a chance for a direct hit to the ship.
            1. Ruslan
              Ruslan 26 November 2015 10: 46 New
              +3
              1. What will happen to an unarmored ship? will drown. this at least most of the crew will survive and will have the opportunity to retreat under the guise of military comrades. and the armless will go to the bottom.
              2. There will be no separate nuclear war purely for the fleet. what's the difference how an atomic war starts? if we consider the local collision ala-Falkland, then the meaning of booking immediately appears.
              1. Scraptor
                Scraptor 26 November 2015 10: 59 New
                0
                In the open sea, the psychological threshold for the use of nuclear warheads is lower - the cities are far away. Between China and the United States may begin in the near future because of Senkaku with the development of a large one.

                In one heavily-armored Belgrano, it died more than in the entire British fleet, and even more than in that entire war.

                If the F-16 "Moscow" shells, of course it will be a shame ... only then what will happen next? The usual NAPL can try to sink it, moreover, not necessarily NATO.

                NW in the war between nuclear powers is the first to use the weaker side, unable to solve the problem by conventional means, everywhere and in the USA they somehow forget about it ... soldier

                No one, even because of the Su-24, will actually look at Turkey’s “territorial integrity / integrity” so that Herr-Stoltenberg would not mumble under his breath ...
                1. brn521
                  brn521 26 November 2015 11: 44 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Scraptor
                  and in the USA they somehow forget about it ...

                  Do not forget. They have the same concept - a preemptive strike. Those. calculate the location and destroy before the declaration of war.
                  1. Scraptor
                    Scraptor 26 November 2015 11: 55 New
                    +2
                    You have too many concepts in your head and all are wrong ...
                    If either side has suffered too much loss and cannot level the score with conventional warheads, then it will do this with BCH ...
              2. Kalmar
                Kalmar 26 November 2015 11: 58 New
                +2
                Quote: ruslan
                at least the majority of the crew will survive and will have the opportunity to retreat under the guise of military comrades

                It was during the WWII that it was so easy to take and retreat: the further you get away from the enemy, the less accurate and effective his fire will be. In modern anti-ship missiles, accuracy and efficiency are almost independent of the distance, so there will be not so many chances to crawl away.

                Quote: ruslan
                there will be no separate nuclear war purely for the fleet

                Firstly, if it came to serious sea battles, then there is no need to stand on ceremony.
                Secondly, the use of anti-ship missiles with UBF fits well with the concept of limited nuclear war, when the ICBMs were not yet used, but TNWs were already in use.

                Quote: ruslan
                if we consider the local collision ala-Falkland, then the meaning of booking immediately appears

                And here I agree: in a counter-Papuan war, when one of the parties has only weak and inarticulate anti-ship weapons, booking can be beneficial.
                1. Dart2027
                  Dart2027 26 November 2015 19: 12 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Kalmar
                  In modern anti-ship missiles, accuracy and efficiency are almost independent of the distance, so there are not so many chances to crawl away and wounded

                  If you fight at a distance of several hundred kilometers, then the chances are just the same.
                  If you cut in line of sight, then strangely enough, but the most effective weapon will be guns, not PRK. Just because they open fire faster.
                  1. Kalmar
                    Kalmar 26 November 2015 22: 12 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Dart2027
                    If you fight at a distance of several hundred kilometers, then the chances are just the same.

                    It will depend solely on intelligence. If there is a way to detect a ship with an accuracy of at least plus or minus ten kilometers, it will not creep anywhere, missiles will catch up. As they say, do not run from the sniper: you will die tired :)

                    Quote: Dart2027
                    If you cut in line of sight, strangely enough, but the most effective weapon will be guns

                    It is a fact. Moreover, with the first shot you can send a guided projectile with a special mark of 1ct. The second is not required. Another thing is that I have little idea of ​​how modern cruisers / destroyers can converge in an artillery duel. More precisely, the question is not even “how?”, But “why ??”.
                    1. Dart2027
                      Dart2027 26 November 2015 23: 32 New
                      +2
                      Quote: Kalmar
                      It will depend entirely on intelligence.

                      The option that he will not be alone, but as part of a squadron that will cover him, are you not considering? In addition, the chance to escape is better than guaranteed destruction by the first hit.
                      Quote: Kalmar
                      1ct guided projectile

                      And the Day of Judgment will come. If the battle with conventional weapons can drive, then the use of nuclear weapons in any form is a different scenario, sad for everyone.
                      Quote: Kalmar
                      More precisely, the question is not even “how?”, But “why ??”

                      It depends on how close they will be at the time of receiving the order.
                      Why - just the supply of missiles on the ship is limited. In 1164, for example, there are only 16 - it will spend a maximum of half an hour, and what should I do? Either run away or move towards the enemy and continue with what is left.
                      Not a fan of Zamvolt, but his artillery is good - the caliber is 155 mm, the range is promised to be 180 km, I don’t know how with the maximum distance, but the tests for 81 km were successful. And given that CSS is also being improved, this can be a very serious argument.
                      1. Kalmar
                        Kalmar 27 November 2015 00: 50 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Dart2027
                        The option that he will not be alone, but as part of a squadron that will cover him, are you not considering?

                        So after all, a salvo of anti-ship missiles will be designed for the entire squadron. These are not battles of WWII times, when ships could be knocked out one at a time; Now it is customary to cover the entire flotilla at once.

                        Quote: Dart2027
                        In addition, the chance to escape is better than guaranteed destruction by the first hit.

                        I do not argue. But, in general, the armor no longer carries the main protective function, it just turns into a not very convincing last chance to stay afloat.

                        Quote: Dart2027
                        And the Day of Judgment will come. If the battle with conventional weapons can drive, then the use of nuclear weapons in any form is a different scenario, sad for everyone.

                        I can hardly imagine a full-fledged raid on, say, some American AUG, which can then be diplomatically hushed up. If it comes to this, then you can especially not restrain yourself in the means.

                        Again, the idea of ​​limited nuclear conflict and the psychological aspects of the use of nuclear weapons in naval combat have already been mentioned. The open ocean is not a densely populated city, there will be no casualties among the civilian population, so there are not so many reasons to not use nuclear weapons.

                        Quote: Dart2027
                        It depends on how close they will be at the time of receiving the order.

                        And until an order is received, the enemy will calmly watch how they get close to him? Something is very doubtful. Even in peacetime, our ships and "their" ships at such ranges had to converge very rarely. In the pre-war period - they simply will not allow it.

                        Quote: Dart2027
                        Why - just the supply of missiles on the ship is limited. In 1164, for example, there are only 16 - it will spend a maximum of half an hour, and what should I do? Either run away or move towards the enemy and continue with what is left.

                        If a salvo of 16 “Basalts” did not destroy the target, then popping in with artillery is uniform suicide. 1164mu it will be necessary to pass 300-400km, being subjected to counter attacks by the retreating enemy and not being able to at least somehow respond.

                        Quote: Dart2027
                        Not a fan of Zamvolt, but his artillery is good - the caliber is 155 mm, the range is promised 180 km, I don’t know how with the maximum distance, but the tests for 81 km were successful.

                        A projectile flying 180km is the same rocket, only a small one. For work on point targets on the coast - very practical. But a more or less large ship you drown with such kindness.
                      2. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 27 November 2015 18: 36 New
                        0
                        Quote: Kalmar
                        So after all, a salvo of anti-ship missiles will be designed for the entire squadron
                        So after all, the missile defense squadron will also be designed to repulse a massive attack.
                        Quote: Kalmar
                        turns into a not-so-convincing last chance to stay afloat
                        This is its function - the last chance. It is pointless to build a new Yamato, but Kutuzov is quite viable.
                        Quote: Kalmar
                        and psychological aspects of the use of nuclear weapons
                        I'm just about psychology. If someone starts launching it at sea, then who will guarantee that they will not do the same on land? The first step is always the most difficult and the adversary will most likely decide that the initiative must be seized.
                        Quote: Kalmar
                        And until an order is received, the enemy will calmly watch how they get close to him?
                        Or he will strive for the same thing. Situations when ships are within sight are not uncommon.
                        Quote: Kalmar
                        will have to go 300-400km
                        It all depends on the task and the situation. In the USSR, the Mediterranean squadron was actually a kamikaze whose chances of survival were very small.
                        Quote: Kalmar
                        A 180km projectile is the same rocket, only a small one
                        That's what this is all about - WWII level artillery is really inferior to PRK in everything, but with the development of technology, the cannons can become the main weapon for the Navy.
                        Quote: Kalmar
                        But a more or less large ship you drown with such kindness
                        Yes, you’re hovering over an aircraft carrier, but the destroyer is already a question, a dozen of such blanks from an ordinary warhead at the waterline level and hello to Neptune.
                      3. Kalmar
                        Kalmar 27 November 2015 22: 28 New
                        0
                        Quote: Dart2027
                        So after all, the missile defense squadron will also be designed to repulse a massive attack.

                        This is not about that, but about the fact that all ships of the squadron will rake approximately equally. The situation when one wounded animal will depart under the guise of the remaining survivors is not typical.

                        Quote: Dart2027
                        This is its function - the last chance

                        Therefore, on the most important ships: theirs, aircraft carriers and our TARKRs, armor is still placed. For artillery at a range of "point blank", of course, not enough, but as a last chance - quite.

                        Quote: Dart2027
                        Or he will strive for the same thing.

                        What for? It's easier on the contrary to move away, load new ammunition from the supply ship and attack again from a safe distance. An aircraft carrier in close combat is so completely useless.

                        Quote: Dart2027
                        Situations when ships are within sight are not uncommon.

                        In peacetime.

                        Quote: Dart2027
                        with the development of technology, the mustache can become the main weapon for the Navy

                        Quote: Dart2027
                        Yes, you’re hovering over an aircraft carrier, but the destroyer is already a question, a dozen of such blanks from an ordinary warhead at the waterline level and hello to Neptune.

                        There is one subtle point here: miracle shells are adjusted by GPS. Those. the attacked ship should stand exactly in one place. And with the declared KVO at 50m at the maximum range, laying a dozen shots under the waterline will take a very long time.

                        I’m silent about the fact that shells fly along a fairly predictable trajectory (this is not a full-fledged rocket, it cannot do sharp maneuvers), which greatly simplifies the work of air defense.

                        In general, for shooting some inactive targets, the potential "main weapon for the Navy" is quite and completely suitable, but for a sea battle - it is extremely doubtful.
                      4. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 28 November 2015 09: 27 New
                        0
                        Quote: Kalmar
                        all ships of the squadron will rake approximately equally
                        Why? Someone will be able to bring down all the missiles flying into him, someone will not, there are many factors here - the type of air defense standing on a particular ship, the number of missiles that were aimed at him, crew training, etc.
                        Quote: Kalmar
                        our TARKRs
                        This is good, but I would have provided destroyers with cruisers "last chance".
                        Quote: Kalmar
                        What for? It's easier on the contrary to move away
                        So the enemy will calmly leave.
                        Quote: Kalmar
                        In peacetime.
                        Before the war there is always peacetime. Situations when, under the stress of the situation, the fleets maneuvered in front of each other are not uncommon.
                        Quote: Kalmar
                        There is one subtle point here
                        Now there is, but progress does not stand still - "with the development of technology." Yes, and now - you can’t push a lot in the 155 mm, but in the 300 mm? The same "Caliber" 533 mm and fly to 2600 km.
                      5. Kalmar
                        Kalmar 28 November 2015 23: 08 New
                        0
                        Quote: Dart2027
                        Why? Someone will be able to bring down all the missiles flying into him, someone will not, there are many factors here - the type of air defense standing on a particular ship, the number of missiles that were aimed at him, crew training, etc.

                        It’s clear that much here is a matter of chance and all that. But on average, it can be expected that most of the squadron’s ships will receive serious damage, and the remaining ones simply don’t have enough air defense systems (they desperately repulsed attacks) to cover everyone from the second attack.

                        Quote: Dart2027
                        This is good, but I would have provided destroyers with cruisers "last chance".

                        Somewhere on this site came across an article (not Kaptsova’s kind), which calculated that most modern destroyers could, if desired, add armor without a serious impact on seaworthiness. So, if there is a real need for this all, there is an opportunity.

                        Quote: Dart2027
                        So the enemy will calmly leave.

                        Let's just say: if the enemy accurately and guaranteed does not have the ability to quickly replenish the ammunition (from a supply ship, for example), then you can try to chase after him in order to finish off the fly swatter. In other cases, the risk is not justified.

                        Quote: Dart2027
                        Now there is, but progress does not stand still - "with the development of technology." Yes, and now - you can’t push a lot in the 155 mm, but in the 300 mm? The same "Caliber" 533 mm and fly to 2600 km.

                        Yes, I do not argue. You can add gosn to the projectile, shunting engines and other lotions. But what do we get on the way out? That's right, an ordinary rocket, only small and with an exorbitant cost of delivering a kilogram of explosives.

                        For example, a long-range projectile 155/62 AGS to Zamvolt costs about 400 kilobaxes, while it contains about 11 kg of explosives. The same “Tomahawk” costs about 1.5 million, being able to throw several times more payload an order of magnitude further. And no special gun mounts are needed.
                      6. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 29 November 2015 10: 59 New
                        0
                        Quote: Kalmar
                        there simply isn’t enough ammunition for the air defense system (they fought off the attacks frantically) to cover everyone from the second attack
                        So there will be fewer missiles.
                        Quote: Kalmar
                        So, if there is a real need for this all, there is an opportunity
                        I didn’t read the article you are talking about, but as an engineer, I doubt it very much. Just changing the center of gravity can turn a ship into a trough.
                        Quote: Kalmar
                        if the enemy accurately and guaranteed does not have the ability to quickly replenish the ammunition
                        Of course.
                        Quote: Kalmar
                        shell 155/62 AGS to "Zamvolt" costs about 400 kilobaks
                        once thought that about 30-50 thousand.
                        Quote: Kalmar
                        That's right, an ordinary rocket, only a small one
                        And so it is. Cruise missiles such as Caliber are becoming a kind of analogue of ballistic missiles and it will be irrational to use them against other ships located not over a thousand km away.
                        A kind of analogy with air defense which is shared for long and medium range.
                      7. Kalmar
                        Kalmar 29 November 2015 23: 23 New
                        0
                        Quote: Dart2027
                        once thought that about 30-50 thousand.

                        I confess, I believed in the word Wikipedia. Although, as I understand it, there are no exact numbers anywhere, but it seems that below 50k it was not promised anywhere. All the same, a lot, given the completely unwarranted hit in the ship at long range.

                        Quote: Dart2027
                        And so it is. Cruise missiles such as Caliber are becoming a kind of analogue of ballistic missiles and it will be irrational to use them against other ships located not over a thousand km away.
                        A kind of analogy with air defense which is shared for long and medium range.

                        What's the point? For small ranges already have the same "Harpoon".

                        An attempt to turn an artillery shell into RCC will initially be irrational, because:
                        1. high cost: in fact, instead of one "large" warhead, we get several "small" ones, supplying each with its own GOS and engine;
                        2. complexity: mini-anti-ship missiles should fit into very small dimensions due to the caliber and design of the gun mount;
                        3. The problem with the GOS: at the time of the shot, the artillery shell is experiencing enormous overloads that the WGV cannot withstand.

                        As a result, there is a lot of trouble, and the benefits are very dubious. Such a gun mount will still make sense when shooting small-sized targets, for which even 200 kg of the Harpoon warhead is excessive; it’s better to immediately send a full-fledged rocket into the ship.
                      8. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 30 November 2015 19: 22 New
                        0
                        Quote: Kalmar
                        Although, as I understand it, there are no exact numbers anywhere, but it seems that below 50k it was not promised anywhere
                        I came across values ​​from 35 to 50 thousand. I don’t really know how, but I think that the order is something like this.
                        Quote: Kalmar
                        As a result, there is a lot of trouble, and the benefits are very dubious.
                        Now yes, although about a small warhead it depends on the caliber, the same 200 kg can be completely stuffed into the shell, the question is what will happen in 30-50 years. If the artillerymen of the time of the REV saw modern artillery, then their eyes would vertically become wider than horizontally, and ceteris paribus the price of shells would be less than missiles.
                      9. Secta
                        Secta haki 30 November 2015 19: 30 New
                        +1
                        The price of shells and powder charges to them - maybe, but not a shot from a gun. The wear of the main caliber barrel and the work of replacing it are expensive.
                      10. Kalmar
                        Kalmar 1 December 2015 14: 06 New
                        0
                        Quote: Dart2027
                        Now yes, although about a small warhead it depends on the caliber, the same 200 kg can be stuffed into a shell

                        If we talk, so to speak, about warhead shells (explosives plus shell plus fuses, i.e. without taking into account GOS, gas generator, etc.), then this will be a very, very chubby projectile that will not fit into 155 mm. Of course, you can put "Big Bert" on the ship, but why?

                        Quote: Dart2027
                        ceteris paribus the price of shells will be less than rockets

                        Provided that it will be a shell, i.e. without marching engine, wings and other joys. And without them, a shell for the role of RCC (which was originally spoken about) would not work. Those. will have to make a rocket out of it, but why? The rocket is already there.

                        For small ground targets, this is another matter. If the enemy does not have anti-ship systems on the coast, then at relatively short ranges it will really be easier and cheaper to hit with guided projectiles.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Mera joota
    Mera joota 26 November 2015 08: 22 New
    0
    Quote: ruslan
    Well, so the modern battleship will not be with a bare booty. zrk to choose from, zpu with smart shells, eb, traps. and how many pcr will get after that?

    Exactly as much as it takes to send it to hell.
    How many rockets do not shove into the battleship, he will in any case not be in a winning position. The fact is that the destruction of one enemy RCC requires TWO SAMs, and if the attacking side can attack the RCC with a cheap dope that simulates RCC, the defending side cannot. Shoot down will need everything that flies in their direction.
    Electronic countermeasures are possible only against missiles with a radar seeker; against missiles with an optical infrared seeker, interference is useless.
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 26 November 2015 08: 32 New
      +1
      Against IR and optics, it depends on which there are the same fumes.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Mera joota
        Mera joota 26 November 2015 09: 45 New
        0
        Quote: Scraptor
        Against IR and optics, it depends on which there are the same fumes.

        Smokes, aerosols, water curtains ... All this works poorly against modern infrared seekers operating in the IR, UV and visible ranges. Especially when the attack is carried out from different courses.
        Therefore, all modern anti-ship missiles are created precisely with IR NSN.
        1. Scraptor
          Scraptor 26 November 2015 09: 49 New
          0
          Put different smokes from different courses, blind the GOS, what are the problems?
          IR GOS is most exposed to fumes.
        2. barbiturate
          barbiturate 26 November 2015 13: 10 New
          +1
          All this works great against GOS operating in any spectrum.
    2. Ruslan
      Ruslan 26 November 2015 09: 17 New
      +3
      if the battleship is not in a winning position, then according to your arguments, any ship is absolutely useless, from the word at all! not only will he be hit by rockets, but he will also fall apart, drown and burn from the debris of the rocket and close gaps. why do you need a fleet then?
      1. Scraptor
        Scraptor 26 November 2015 09: 25 New
        +1
        Why are motorized infantry not just tanks (which do not sink on the ground)?
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. Mera joota
        Mera joota 26 November 2015 09: 46 New
        0
        Quote: ruslan
        if the battleship is not in a winning position, then according to your arguments, any ship is absolutely useless

        Not useless, but not able to withstand the impact of modern aviation.
        1. barbiturate
          barbiturate 26 November 2015 13: 09 New
          +1
          A ship with armor is not capable of yours, but which one is capable? Everything is known in comparison, that would indicate the ship. Here they say - is able to withstand the impact of modern aviation.
          1. Kalmar
            Kalmar 26 November 2015 22: 18 New
            +2
            Quote: barbiturate
            A ship with armor is not capable of yours, but which one is capable?

            A single ship can always be clogged with aircraft, no matter how big it is. But if we are assembling a whole compound with a powerful layered air defense, then gouging it from the air will already be very, very difficult. If this connection is also covered by its aviation (either from the coast or from an aircraft carrier), then it already ceases to be defenseless. Armor will also help, but it will not play a key role.
    3. Per se.
      Per se. 26 November 2015 10: 56 New
      +4
      Quote: Mera Joota
      Exactly as much as it takes to send it to hell.
      There are no ships, tanks or planes that cannot be destroyed, the whole question is how easy or difficult it is to do. For example, our latest multi-purpose Su-34.
      Su-34 combines the experience of the combat use of percussion machines in local conflicts. For the first time in aviation history, the cockpit of a front-line bomber is made in the form of a durable armored capsule. The crew and the most important aircraft units are covered with titanium armor up to 17 mm thick.
      Despite the doubts of some experts about the advisability of such protection on a modern aircraft (a DShK machine gun bullet penetrates 20 mm armored steel from a distance of 500 m, shells of an 23-mm automatic anti-aircraft gun tear this armor to pieces to a kilometer distance, but not about the damaging factors of anti-aircraft missile warheads worth mentioning) - despite all these doubts, armor protection reliably protects the aircraft from a stray bullet from small arms, which increases the survival rate of the machine in low-altitude flights over enemy territory.
      Not everywhere there will be something like C-300, but an action movie with Kalash or MANPADS, you look and break off, especially since most aircraft have armored backs for pilot seats and frontal armored glass. Even if they bring down the plane (they’ll sink the ship), no one canceled the extra chance to save lives. Bulletproof vests also have a different protection class, if we talk about different ships, different ships can and should have their own protection class, especially with their high value, and, especially, the value of life of sailors themselves. Not everywhere there will be a torpedo with a "vigorous" warhead, or a cloud of heavy anti-ship missiles, a warship should not sink, like an "aluminum can" from light damage, lose crew members in low-critical situations. The Americans are already booking their destroyers such as Arly Burke, where increased survivability, in particular, is provided by armor made from Kevlar and armored light alloys. The armor is already returning to the fleet, as new materials, new technologies, which, together with other means of protection, will provide an active and passive increase in survivability. Whether battleships will return to the fleet as new universal missile-cannon strike units is another matter. In my humble opinion, Oleg is better to separate the concepts of protection (survivability) and directly the theme of the battleships themselves (generally large surface ships). Probably, some understand everything literally, like, Kaptsov advocates returning the Second World War ships to modern reality ... Maybe, using the example of armored boats or the same German armored landing barges, show the obvious?
    4. Kalmar
      Kalmar 26 November 2015 22: 26 New
      0
      Quote: Mera Joota
      if the attacking side can dilute attacking anti-ship missiles with cheap dummies simulating anti-ship missiles

      But this is poorly imagined. "Cheap dope" should:
      a) fly at the same range as the RCC (and at the same speed);
      b) have a seeker to fly all the same in the direction of the ship, and not somewhere.

      We get, in fact, the same RCC, only without warheads - and what's the point? Since it’s still flying in that direction, even if it’s lucky what nishtyakov is with it. For example, one could use light anti-radar missiles as such “false” targets: as a bonus, they can seriously undermine enemy air defense, destroying naval radars.
    5. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 26 November 2015 23: 42 New
      +2
      Quote: Mera Joota
      to destroy one enemy RCC requires TWO SAM
      It is possible to use electronic warfare for the "withdrawal" of anti-ship missiles, MZA again. Do not believe it, but even RBUs ​​are used for this.
      Quote: Mera Joota
      if the attacking side can dilute attacking anti-ship missiles with cheap durilik simulating anti-ship missiles, then the defending side cannot.

      And where did you see "cheap idiots - RCC simulators"? Or do you think that the attacker will consciously weaken the power of its missile salvo?
      Quote: Mera Joota
      Shoot down will need everything that flies in their direction.
      Yah!? Apparently the Dagger algorithm is incorrect if it passes everything that goes with the parameter more than 2,0km past the ship.
      Quote: Mera Joota
      Electronic countermeasures are possible only against missiles with a radar seeker; against missiles with an optical infrared seeker, interference is useless.

      In the radio range, yes. But he alone does not exhaust the entire spectrum of EMC. Smokes, aerosols, missiles with a sprayed mixture of internal combustion engines. Have you heard about IR traps? So they are also used in the cloud ... But another misfortune - the UV signature - the seam! There are really problems with this ... But work is ongoing, presumably.
  • washi
    washi 26 November 2015 09: 37 New
    +1
    Quote: Wedmak
    So nobody seems to dispute historical facts. But the question is, how long would such a battleship last against supersonic anti-ship missiles? Just do not talk about the frailty of the RCC itself. If the enemy has armored cruisers and battleships, appropriate means of attack are created accordingly. And rightly said above. In the 1 and 2 world wars, the accuracy of the strikes depended on the person, how firmly the pilot or gunner kept his sight. Now, anti-ship missiles can enter the galley’s porthole and exit through the porthole from the other side. And nobody canceled cluster charges.
    That is why the task of designing is not to withstand the blow, but to prevent it.

    Those. on modern tanks should there be a bunch of complexes like Arena and no armor?
    Could it be better to combine active and passive protection?
    If there is armor on the ships, it will be necessary to increase the mass of missiles to increase their penetration. Increasing the mass of missiles decreases their number on the carrier. Etc. etc.
    Modern NATO anti-ship missiles cannot burn through or armor the battleship of World War I. And if you add active counteraction to this .....
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 26 November 2015 10: 15 New
      +2
      Those. on modern tanks should there be a bunch of complexes like Arena and no armor?

      In general, the tank is a slightly different story, do not you think? And by the way, active defense is increasingly being introduced on new tanks. T-14 is an example for you, it is studded on all sides with sensors and charges of active protection.
      Could it be better to combine active and passive protection?

      It's better. Therefore, they combine. And a steel plate weighing 10-15 tons is replaced by 4's ton AK-630. Because passive protection in the fleet is currently not effective.

      If there is armor on the ships, it will be necessary to increase the mass of missiles to increase their penetration.

      Is not a fact. Tandem charges will flourish.
      Modern NATO anti-ship missiles cannot burn through or lay out the armor of the 1 world battleship.

      But it is easy to disable the means of observation and target designation. And if you finish them a little, they will go straight into the bridge, destroying the command staff of the ship.
      1. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 27 November 2015 00: 01 New
        +1
        Quote: Wedmak
        will fall directly into the bridge, destroying the command staff of the ship.
        You will not believe! But the running post (bridge, as you put it) the location of VO and the elder aboard only in peacetime. With the announcement of a combat alert, everyone is placed on the CKP, which is located deep in the "womb of the ship." There is a good structural protection and groove.
        So there is hope ...
    2. Scraptor
      Scraptor 26 November 2015 10: 17 New
      +4
      The tanks are not water-floating and it’s difficult for him to throw a powerful landmine under the bottom, if only he will run over.

      Local ship reservations apply. In addition, ship structural steel itself is usually from 8mm thicker (thicker than the roof of old BMPs).

      While they will build such a heavily-armored ship (which can still be drowned by a torpedo), the RCC and warhead necessary for it will appear to them.
    3. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 26 November 2015 23: 55 New
      +2
      Quote: Vasya
      Modern NATO anti-ship missiles cannot burn through or lay out the armor of the 1 world battleship.

      But all RES will be demolished to a hairdryer! So what will a “blind” leviathan do?
  • Urfin
    Urfin 26 November 2015 14: 26 New
    +1
    Quote: Wedmak
    But the question is, how long would such a battleship last against supersonic anti-ship missiles?

    I do not argue, battleships were no longer needed. The question is, really, the reason.
    But how much does the armored action of anti-ship missiles differ from the 406mm projectile?
    1. DimanC
      DimanC 26 November 2015 18: 22 New
      0
      Yes, the question is whether it is possible to conditionally attach the engine and guidance system to a 406-mm shell at a modern level. Sure. Accordingly, the results will be relevant.
      1. Scraptor
        Scraptor 26 November 2015 18: 30 New
        +1
        Of course, the caliber of large RCCs is somewhere around 850mm - more than the American 406mm, Japanese 460, German 380, or “torpedo” 533, and even more than the “Dora” ... lol
  • Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 26 November 2015 07: 11 New
    12
    I wanted to put a plus only because Comrade Kaptsov simply did not project history onto today's ships with incredible efforts. The article may be useful to lovers of the history of the fleet, as statistical material (though with some caveat).
    And I wanted to instruct the vit of minuses for the "Kaptsovsky" style of writing - Again there are too many pathos, different "battleships" (Mr. Kaptsov, we speak Russian, not English wink ), and other husks, which, in my opinion, make a more or less serious analytical article more like fiction with a decrease in the ability to adequately evaluate what is written.
    Because I don’t put anything, the more so because the author has a very sensitive vanity lol
    From myself I will only say that a lot has been written correctly (about the comments above), but this is a story !!! and the confrontation between armor and shells was very fruitful, giving cases of both victory of the armor over the shell and the complete uselessness of the reservation. But this is a story! HISTORY, Comrade Kaptsov !!!!
    And today's realities prove that the appearance of your favorite battleships is almost impossible, because if it weren’t, the Americans would either force all Iowas to swim with the Massachusetts again, or riveted new armored mastodons !! (Fortunately, the opportunity to print there is money) But this does not happen ... Maybe the Americans you love are not so stupid? wink
    hi
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 26 November 2015 07: 55 New
      +1
      Probably they still know that in addition to nuclear weapons there are also ordinary RCC diving under the keel, which, like an armored ship and an unarmored ship, will be cut in half by an explosion there.
      1. RPG_
        RPG_ 26 November 2015 13: 53 New
        0
        To date, there are none.
        1. Scraptor
          Scraptor 26 November 2015 17: 25 New
          0
          A week or a month ago already withdrawn from service?
    2. Alex_59
      Alex_59 26 November 2015 08: 24 New
      +3
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Comrade Kaptsov simply did not project history onto today's ships with incredible efforts.

      This is the "foreplay." :-)
      The next article will be about what a leaky trough frigate "Stark" demanding to immediately shackle it in armor. As if not paying attention to size and classification.
      Aircraft carriers took the place of LC as the main striking force of the fleet today. And in this regard, nothing has changed - try to drown the aircraft carrier with its protection. Still have to sweat.
      1. Scraptor
        Scraptor 26 November 2015 08: 39 New
        +4
        Ordinary, not floating, airfields, hasn’t anyone ever attacked? Therefore, the Americans so heavily sawed the Tu-160 on Urkain, and was hysterical about removing the refueling rods from the Tu-22M3.
    3. max702
      max702 26 November 2015 09: 43 New
      +2
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Maybe the Americans you love are not so stupid?

      They have no trivial opponents ... Everyone who is something either under occupation or purchased .. We pose a threat BUT only in the event of a retaliatory strike, and without nuclear weapons we are not going to fight the United States, and there will be armor or not, it doesn’t matter how and the presence of the entire US Navy, we are not the first to attack, with China the same picture .. So the United States has no opponents at sea and therefore they do not need armor, minor incidents do not count ..
  • DimanC
    DimanC 26 November 2015 07: 31 New
    +9
    Strange, no comments yet ?! Half a half! All hands on deck!!!
    Regarding the battle of Jutlad. Once I ran into an excellent job with an approximate name: “Battle of Jutland, lessons and conclusions” (if anyone has a link, please discard it. It used to be on the Tsushima site, but then it disappeared, I myself can’t find it on the network for a long time). There, the author quite interestingly develops myths about the "poor" security of the British and vice versa, the "good" security of the Germans. In particular:

    1. Those English LKR, which did not drown from the explosions, had on average fewer wounded than German. On the contrary, the German LKR already by the time of the battle with the battleships (the end of the "run to the north") practically ceased to exist as combat units, because they did not have any working main-gun weapons at all.
    2. German ships long and painfully returned to service after repair. The battered Lyon was ready to continue the battle the next day, but the battered Derflinger was not. Seidlitz? So he was barely dragged to the base (I had to partially disassemble it).

    In this sense, it is interesting to read A. Patients (who are not offended by laughing ) There, the man fairly correctly described the "explosiveness" of the British - the desire to deliver the shell to the gun as quickly as possible. Well, the design of gunpowder and charges also contributed to the sim ...

    And about the "unsinkability" of the LC - as everyone already knew by the end of the WWII at sea. But only then it was about ship artillery. And this was fully confirmed in WWII at sea: “Bismarck” could not be drowned by artillery fire, finished off with torpedoes, an approximate story happened with the “Scharnhorst”. But the torpedo without problems sank even the most protected ships. And the examples from “Musashi” and “Yamato” only confirm this. Yes, yes, yes, exactly! They confirmed that good means of struggle appeared against well-armored ships. And here I repeat one of my past comments: do not care that the Americans spent hundreds of sorties and dozens of bombs and torpedoes on the Yamato or Musashi. The main thing is that they could provide such a density of fire and they provided it. No one else could provide such a density of fire, and therefore did not achieve such success. Actually, those who say that the torpedo bomber became the grave digger of the battleship are right, but the battleship, having "drowned" himself, "drowned" his grave digger as well.
  • tasha
    tasha 26 November 2015 07: 46 New
    0
    Now I would also have an article on the military achievements of the battleships of the twentieth century.
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 26 November 2015 07: 51 New
      0
      battleships of the twentieth century.

      And their revival in 21? There are already so many copies on them broken that from these fragments of the Egyptian pyramids are not visible.
  • Serg65
    Serg65 26 November 2015 08: 08 New
    12
    I will not hide Oleg, after your "liberal" comments, my attitude towards you has changed for the worse, but I confess, the marine theme always disturbs my soul.
    So what is a fleet? The fleet is a UNION of warships created to perform certain tasks within the framework of the military doctrine of the state! It is on the basis of the tasks defined by military doctrine that military equipment is built, including warships. What doctrine did Great Britain have at the time of the 1 World War? The answer follows from the unofficial name of this country, "Lord of the Seas." From these conditions the Grand Fleet was built, powerful artillery, high speed, increased cruising range. An increase in any of these three conditions led to a change in booking and stability, which was manifested in the evolution of British battleships. The battleship "Rivenge" incorporated in the 1913 year was very different from the battleship "Bellerophon" incorporated in the 1907 year.
    Germany, by virtue of its state youth, a small number of colonies, and the superiority of the British at sea in the construction of its battleships, took a different path. Rapid fire artillery, powerful armoring, developed unsinkability support, the Bayern battleship was the crown of the creation of German shipbuilders.
    Oleg, you described the battle of Jutland to us and showed the superiority of the German battleships over the British, but as always you were silent about the outcome of this battle, and after all, the main thing was not who won, but what the battle turned out for both sides! As Lord Hankey said: “Victory is determined not by comparing casualties in people and equipment, not by tactical episodes during the battle, but only by its results.” As for the end of the Battle of Jutland, the same Hankey rightly remarked: “The next morning, after the battle, Jelliko discovered that he undividedly controlled the North Sea, where there was no trace of the enemy. This state of affairs perfectly suited his goals. ” In those days, the German newspaper Berliner Tageblatt wrote: “The German fleet barely escaped a crushing defeat. Now it is clear to any rational person that this battle could and should be the last. ”
    1. Santa Fe
      26 November 2015 09: 00 New
      -1
      Quote: Serg65
      about the outcome of this battle, but the main thing is not who won, but what turned out to be a battle for both sides! As Lord Hankey said:

      From the perspective of our day, it doesn't matter who won the battle of 100 years ago. What military political consequences she had, it also doesn’t matter in the past years.

      The answer to a single question matters: why the lightly armored LCR of the British died more often than the highly protected LCR of the Germans. The answer is contained in the question itself.
      Quote: Serg65
      The fleet is a UNION of warships created to perform certain tasks within the framework of the military doctrine of the state! It is on the basis of the tasks defined by military doctrine that military equipment is built

      Now it doesn’t matter who built what for what and what was the balance of power

      One fact matters - only the most vulnerable ships died. Despite all their “active defenses” (speed and firepower)
      1. Scraptor
        Scraptor 26 November 2015 09: 09 New
        0
        Demagoguery started ...

        speed and firepower are only among destroyers who dodged and fired torpedoes with an anti-mine caliber.
      2. Serg65
        Serg65 26 November 2015 09: 26 New
        +4
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        why the lightly armored LCR of the British died more often than the highly protected LCR of the Germans.

        The question is legitimate, Queen Mary, Indefetigible and Invincible were each destroyed in one gulp, while the battered Lutz went out of the battle and was later flooded by its own destroyers. The causes of these disasters were found in the burnt tower of Q "Lyon". The Admiralty did not even think of taking any measures to protect the cellar from the fire of cordite, which nearly killed the armored cruiser Kent in the battle of the Falkland Islands. But the Germans got a tremendous advantage, drawing conclusions from the battle at Dogger Bank. Although at least 9 towers of the Hipper battlecruisers were destroyed by British shells, their cellars were not in danger. But the Admiralty remained convinced that the working compartment was preventing the fire from breaking out cordite from spreading down the elevator shafts, despite a very obvious example.
        The Seidlitz, Derflinger, König, and Grosser Elector were damaged harder than the rest of the German ships, but they withstood all the attacks for other reasons. The hulls of German ships were divided into a large number of waterproof compartments. The largest German dreadnoughts had 6 engine rooms and boiler rooms, while English ships had only 3 such rooms. The Germans had a much better fight for survivability. For example, at Iron Duke, the senior assistant in charge of this was on fore-mars as senior spotter. German ships had another advantage. Fisher did not want to spend money on the construction of new docks and demanded that the ships were designed for existing ones. Von Tirpitz wanted his dreadnoughts to be unsinkable gun platforms. He adopted less heavy guns - first 280-mm, then 305-mm, which allowed his ships to carry thicker armor than the English. However, the advantage of thicker armor of German ships is not as great as is commonly thought. Post-war tests have shown that Baden’s armor does not meet British standards. One of the leading experts in this matter, Nathan Okun, believes that the British armor of the era of World War I of the Era brand was the best in the world and surpassed German armor in strength by 10 - 15%.
        So why ... did the lightly armored LCR of the British die more often than the highly protected LCR of the Germans?
    2. Serg65
      Serg65 26 November 2015 09: 02 New
      +5
      Continuation of my conclusions.
      The German fleet was young, but its ships and equipment were better than the English; its captains, officers and sailors are no worse trained, and in some aspects even better. Moreover, they had the commander in chief of a decisive fighter, not inferior to Jellico as a tactician. But the ships of Tirpitz were built to solve the local problem - to give battle to the British in the North Sea. They lacked a sailing range, and they could not act on ocean trade routes. The name of the fleet Hochseeflotte (Fleet of the High Seas) sounded an evil taunt. As a result, the High Seas Fleet ended its life in the Scapa Flow bucket.
      Now I would like to travel to another part of the planet and for 28 years ahead. You mentioned the Japanese battleships Musashi and Yamato. Indeed, these battleships are at the top of the creation of shipbuilding engineers. Why did these floating fortresses perish without fulfilling the tasks assigned by the Japanese command? And so in order ...
      The battle in Leyte Gulf.
      In October 1944, the Americans launched a landing in the Philippines, and if successful, the operations could destroy the Japanese defensive perimeter and cut off Japan from the main sources of raw materials and oil. The rate was too high, and the Japanese command decided to conduct a general battle. The Japanese realized that they risk losing their entire fleet in the upcoming battle. However, the Philippines had to be held at all costs. After the war, Admiral Toyoda explained his calculations as follows: “If the worst happened, we could lose the entire fleet, but I thought that we should take risks ... If the Philippine operation failed, the sea communications with the south would be completely cut off and the fleet, Having returned to Japanese waters, he could not have received the necessary fuel, and if he remained in the southern waters, he could not have received ammunition and weapons. There was no point in saving the fleet due to the loss of the Philippines. ”
      And the Japanese took a chance, and since at that time the carrier forces of the Imperial Navy had fallen into disrepair by that time, the main role was assigned to large artillery ships. 4 aircraft carrier, 9 battleships, including the world's largest Yamato and Musashi, 10 heavy and 9 light cruisers, 34 destroyers, were thrown into battle. The Japanese were opposed by the 7 fleet of the USA, having in its composition only aircraft carriers of all stripes as many as 35 pieces, as well as 12 battleships, 24 cruisers and a bunch of destroyers.
      As a result, the Japanese lost all 4 aircraft carrier, 3 battleship, 8 cruisers and 12 destroyers. The battle showed that without air cover, the fleet is not able to carry out combat operations. After the battle, Japan no longer planned major naval operations. The United States managed to seize the bridgehead in the Philippines and launch an offensive deep into the archipelago; their aircraft completely cut Japan off from oil sources in Sumatra and Borneo.
      I do not argue Oleg, the battleship is the most beautiful and high-tech ship, but the time of battleships has already passed, as well as the time of the same handsome sailing battleships.
      1. Scraptor
        Scraptor 26 November 2015 09: 23 New
        +1
        Fuel starvation came even earlier, but due to the actions of American submarines that had sunk tankers that went without security.
        Because of this, the Japanese were constrained in choosing the place and time of the general battle, and in maneuvering - for example, an unrecharged Musash would no longer have the fuel to return to base, if he continued to draw closer. For the same reason, "Sinano" was walking unguarded. Super linkors were transformed into aircraft carriers and not vice versa.
  • Archikah
    Archikah 26 November 2015 08: 30 New
    +7
    This is a typical reflection of a person to a too rapid change in reality. Already many politicians, not to mention military experts, speak of a change in the so-called Technological structures. We are talking about promising means of destruction-defense. Means built on other physical principles. Where it doesn’t matter how vulnerable the armor is and how thick it is.
    All this recalls the dreams of young men and others about the return of beautiful times with dueling with swords, knightly armor, etc. Unfortunately, these times have passed irrevocably and we need to look only forward. Although the beautiful ladies from this past would be nice to return. laughing
    1. The comment was deleted.
  • Alex_59
    Alex_59 26 November 2015 08: 59 New
    +2
    Quote: Zero Nil Seventh
    And what was the use of LC in WWII?

    Well, there was some sense, we will be objective. No need to go far. Sevastopol, which did not give up Leningrad and lasted a year, is largely the merit of our “suitcases” of the GK “October Revolution”, “Marat” and “Sevastopol”.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 26 November 2015 09: 51 New
      0
      About Leningrad. Debatable. 1) Ships of Kronstadt (immobilized)
      they didn’t reach the German guns firing at Leningrad.
      More precisely, the Germans specifically put their artillery,
      so that ship guns from Kronstadt would not reach them.
      2) The shells of the main caliber of the ships ended by December 41,
      and new ones were not produced.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 26 November 2015 11: 09 New
        +3
        Quote: voyaka uh
        About Leningrad. Debatable. 1) Ships of Kronstadt (immobilized)
        they didn’t reach the German guns firing at Leningrad.
        More precisely, the Germans specifically put their artillery,
        so that ship guns from Kronstadt would not reach them.
        2) The shells of the main caliber of the ships ended by December 41,
        and new ones were not produced.

        Oh how! And the men didn’t know ...
        As of June 22, 1941, naval fleets and warehouses for 12 "/ 52 guns had shells: high-explosive armaments of 1911 - 9670 pcs., Armor-piercing arrays of 1911 - 4108 pcs., Long-range arrays of 1928 - 1440 pcs. and shrapnel - 411 pcs. From June 22, 1941 to May 1, 1945, the Navy received 6186 12 "shells from industry.

        "Marat":
        The artillery of the battleship was successfully used while the objects of destruction were within its reach. The last time the ship (commander - captain 1st rank F.F. Tyrshkelevich) opened fire on January 17, 1944. In total, during the war, he conducted 264 live firing, firing 1371 305-mm shells (1329 HE and 42 shrapnel).

        Oktyabrina:
        In January 1944, the battleship participated with its fire in the final lifting of the siege of Leningrad. For eight firing, he fired from a distance of up to 161 kb 182 305 mm shells (seven direct hits were recorded in reinforced concrete pillboxes, bunkers and command posts). In the spring of 1944, part of the personnel of the October Revolution was aimed at staffing the battleship Arkhangelsk, which was accepted in England, which led to the emergence of 50-60% of the shortage of personnel.
        The battleship fired the last 79 rounds with the main caliber on June 9, 1944 at the Finnish fortifications on the Karelian Isthmus (two direct hits in the pillboxes were recorded) at a distance of up to 164 kb. In total, during the years of the war, the battleship “October Revolution” conducted 126 firing of the main caliber, firing 1442 shells.

        By the way, why do you consider only Kronstadt? The same “Oktyabrina” was in St. Petersburg. As well as the Kirov.
        Here is a diagram from Perechnev:

        Scheme of the operational situation and firing positions of ships and coastal batteries in the defense of Leningrad. 1941-1943:
        1 - front line by 19.11.42/2/1942; 3 - front line by December 4; 8 - enemy artillery groups firing at Leningrad; 5, 6 - balloons that carried out the adjustment of artillery fire; 7 - areas subjected to systematic shelling by enemy artillery; 9 - artillery groups of the Soviet field artillery, attracted for counter-battery combat; 10 - naval artillery groups involved in counter-battery combat; 11 - adjustment of artillery fire by aviation; 12 - areas subjected to systematic shelling by artillery of the Leningrad Front; 13 - areas subjected to systematic shelling by artillery of the KBF; 14 - maximum firing range of the KBF artillery; 16.9.43 - KBF aviation attacks on enemy batteries, command posts and airfields; XNUMX - Leningrad counter-battery case, formed on XNUMX from the Leningrad Front and the KBF.
      2. goose
        goose 26 November 2015 11: 55 New
        +1
        The main calibers of 203 mm, 305 mm, 356 mm shells were used for a long time. Another thing is that with railway batteries this use is more efficient than with ships. In general, WWII revealed that there are practically no targets on earth that a 203-mm shell would not have accomplished. For shelling, large calibers already lose their effectiveness. The optimal caliber is 150-254 mm, not more. In 80% of cases, 120-130 mm caliber is enough, but not always, there are problems with range and power.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 26 November 2015 14: 03 New
          +1
          Quote: goose
          The main calibers of 203 mm, 305 mm, 356 mm shells were used for a long time. Another thing is that with railway batteries this use is more efficient than with ships.

          The railway batteries had a big problem - the German counter-battery struggle. To survive batteries 101 pestilence. zdabr had to switch to the practice of short firing raids with quick departure from firing. Battleships and missiles, especially after granite reinforcement (laying on the deck of granite slabs to protect against shells and bombs) were much more tenacious and did not cease fire even if the enemy tried to crush them with fire.
          Quote: goose
          In general, WWII revealed that there are practically no targets on earth that a 203-mm shell would not have accomplished.

          Yeah ... if you pull this fool for direct fire. Otherwise, the consumption of shells to suppress the same bunker became simply terrifying.
      3. saigon
        saigon 26 November 2015 16: 55 New
        0
        read at Shirokorad how many 12 day shells left after WWII not used.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • sevtrash
    sevtrash 26 November 2015 09: 25 New
    0
    Probably no one will argue that the battleships are an impressive war machine. But their supremacy at sea ended with the arrival of aircraft carriers, battleships disappeared as a class. Evolution. It is possible that once the aircraft carriers will be removed from the pedestal, but so far the competitor is not visible.
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 26 November 2015 09: 34 New
      +1
      They have long been displaced by supersonic SCVVP, DRLO convertiplanes and strike / landing ekranoplanes, therefore, neither is foreseen - America should dominate the seas and Oceans, and all should bow, join the freemasons, and go there for chewing gum and grated jeans ... laughing

      Listen to stories about new thermonuclear-resistant battleships with railguns, overseas landing and UDCs, which are easily battered by your MP at a time, about nuclear submarines that are defenseless from deck and base PLO aviation (unless they are under the northern polar cap Mars Earth), and about anything, but not about the types of weapons listed that actually represent a danger to the United States, and on which garbage can regularly spill everywhere, with enviable constancy ... wassat laughing good
  • Monster_Fat
    Monster_Fat 26 November 2015 10: 09 New
    +4
    A strange article ... But what about Ripals, Kirishima, Yamashiro, Bratan, Jean Bar, Fuso, Provence, Dunkirk?
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 26 November 2015 10: 24 New
    +1
    "Arizona". Horizontal booking of the dreadnought of 1915 was not difficult for an 800-kg bomb converted from a 356 mm armor-piercing projectile. Moreover, “Arizona” was the only one of the battleships of Pearl Harbor, sunk in this way.

    Mistake smile
    An armor-piercing bomb Type 99 (Model 1939) No 80 Mark 5 was obtained from 41 cm / 45 (16.1 ") armor-piercing projectile.
    The ballistic (1) and armor-piercing (2) tips, as well as leading belts (6), were dismantled at the shell. The cylindrical part of the projectile, which did not affect armor penetration, was turned on a cone (5) to reduce the weight of the bomb to the B5N acceptable for the Nakajima carrier-based strike aircraft. The internal cavity (4) was increased, which also reduced the weight, significantly increased the explosive charge, and in addition, an aluminum damper (3) was installed there, following the model of new Japanese armor-piercing shells, which reduces shock loads on the explosive charge. A new screw bottom (7) was also made for two fuses (8) of an aircraft type and with a protrusion for attaching the stabilizer block. Plus, the stabilizer block itself (9), which was probably the simplest in this whole conversion. The result was a completely independent new ammunition, for which the original artillery shell served as nothing more than a blank with suitable dimensions and strength characteristics.

    http://midnike.livejournal.com/1231.html
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 26 November 2015 10: 42 New
    +4
    First: lack of anti-torpedo protection (“Congo”, “Fuso”, “Barham”, “Royal Oak”, “Ripals”, “Oklahoma”, “Nevada”, “California”, “V. Virginia”). All of these were World War I dreadnoughts, whose creators were unaware of the rapid evolution of submarines and torpedo bombers.

    “Oklahoma”, “Nevada”, “California”, “V. Virginia ”did not have a PTZ? This is the discovery of the century ... smile
    As I understand it, in a polemic frenzy, the author even forgot about the inter-war program of "standardization" of American aircraft, one of the points of which was precisely the installation of a PTZ of the greatest possible depth - the only limit was the width of the Panama Canal locks.

    Here are the Oklahoma and Nevada PTZ:
    Original:
    The underwater protection of battleships of the Nevada type was 3 m wide and included a double side (the distance between the skin was 0,99 m), followed by an empty compartment with a width of 1,906 m, and then a 38-mm anti-torpedo bulkhead.

    After the upgrade:
    After modernization, the total depth of anti-torpedo protection of the battleships in the mid-section was 5,795 m.

    And here is “California” and “Vivi”:
    Original:
    The anti-torpedo protection system for most of the hull length consisted of 4 vertical longitudinal bulkheads. The first had a thickness of 9,5 mm and passed 1,3 m from the skin; behind it, with a step of 0,915 m, two more 16 mm and one 19 mm were walking. The space between the 1st, 2nd and 3rd bulkheads was filled with oil. In the area of ​​the power plant, another 9 mm bulkhead passed, 4 m from the 1,22th. The maximum depth of the PTZ reached 5,3 m. On three ships of the Maryland type, anti-torpedo bulkheads (PTP) from 2nd to 4th had a thickness of 19 mm. Battleships had a triple bottom in the area of ​​the boiler and turbine compartments and double throughout the rest of the hull.

    After the upgrade:
    During the first modernization, which he managed to go through before the war only Maryland and started the Colorado, the ships got 6 ft. (1,83 m) bulies and having 12,7 mm walls and a 9,5 mm roof. On the upper deck above the turbine compartments, a 31,7 mm high resistance steel plate (HTS) was added.
  • Urfin
    Urfin 26 November 2015 11: 38 New
    +1
    I agree with the author.
    from myself I will add my modest opinion. The battleships ceased to build by no means because they lost their significance in the battle. But because the likelihood of a naval battle in which they will be needed after 45, not only decreased, but became equal to zero (although with time it increased).
    Countries with dreadnoughts were allies, or rather, all economically depended on one of them (in contrast to the consequences of the 1MB), so there could not be only battle, but also confrontation between them.
    Opponent countries - they did not have battleships and they did not need them.
    That is why aircraft carriers have entered the forefront as the most versatile strike ships.
    Now maybe something has changed
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 26 November 2015 11: 51 New
      0
      Even the Swedes began to rebuild battleships and cruisers in aircraft carriers even during the period between the WWII and WWII, and complete “insanity” began with the battleships under the Washington agreement.
    2. Kvazar
      Kvazar 26 November 2015 14: 39 New
      +2
      Not quite right. Battleships were not built but the old ones tried not to cut. This happened due to several reasons. Lack of air defense from the word in general .... near, middle, far and far distant. Plus, it was planned to hammer RCC with SBC. All the necessary set (air defense which can intercept the PKR and bring down the AWACS aircraft, universal cells, satellite constellation, etc.) appeared only recently. And they have all the technologies .... RF and USA. We don’t have money (we just pull the cruiser and then upgrade), the United States also has no money for such toys, there’s not enough for others I don’t live to be fat. Plus, the UBC has not been canceled. And to build a ship to beat the Papuans, or for a local war, here AUG is more preferable because of the price of delivering one ton of explosives to the adversary (and suddenly cheaper to upgrade). LUG is prestige))) But the SU34 sortie "a bit" cheaper than 8 cab 500 cost a third of the cost of one rocket. than a volley of 8 calibers .... and at the same time, if calibers without UBC are also more effective.
  • saturn.mmm
    saturn.mmm 26 November 2015 11: 43 New
    +1
    Thanks for the interesting article.
    "Marat." There is not a single parameter by which it can be seriously compared with late-stage battleships. Breaking through a 30 mm deck - das ist nicht bezonder

    Yes, did not have time to strengthen the "Marat" deck booking in contrast to the "Paris Commune".
    Quote: Zero Nil Seventh
    The most useful WWII LC was Tirpitz, who, in fact, just stood there.

    Marat can argue with him.
    Already on October 31, after a short repair (work on partial restoration of the ship’s combat readiness was carried out under enemy artillery fire), Marat again resisted the invaders. By the end of the year, 6 aircraft were damaged and 8 aircraft were damaged, 18 batteries were crushed and 87 batteries were crushed and up to 18 thousand enemy personnel were destroyed.

    The enemy tried to suppress the artillery of the battleship. On December 28, one of the shells nearly caused the secondary death of the Marat. Piercing almost the entire body vertically, the shell went through the charging and shell cellar of the 3rd tower and got stuck, without breaking, in the hold.
    The Germans made the next attempt to destroy Marat with heavy artillery on October 25, 1942, firing 55 mm shells at it. All three hits fell on the upper deck, covered with granite slabs, and therefore did not cause harm.
    November 3, 1942 on the ship went into operation 2nd tower. The last time the ship opened fire on January 17, 1944.

    Marat just lay.
    1. Banshee
      Banshee 26 November 2015 15: 46 New
      0
      Quote: saturn.mmm
      Marat just lay.


      But not as impressive as Tirpitz. He also scared. Lying down.
      1. Secta
        Secta haki 26 November 2015 18: 30 New
        +2
        Up keel in contrast to the "Marat". Just like the "Bismarck" (on the keel), which was hunted and sunk in his first campaign.
        If he really were scared, then the frightened British would be in Scapa Flow, and in the base he was standing on the contrary.
        These are all legends to justify the deliberate breakdown and defeat of the Arctic convoys, as well as the intimidation of the opening of the 2nd front.
  • Selevc
    Selevc 26 November 2015 11: 57 New
    +3
    Oleg, as always, in his role !!! Battleships were already obsolete as a class by the middle of the 20th century - this became obvious to everyone - even to the possessed Fuhrer !!! And by and large it doesn’t matter how much LK was sunk and how much it was damaged - it’s more likely different - how effective LK were !!! What percentage of personal missions completed the missions assigned to them by 100%, how many partially completed the missile defense, how many did not at all ... And these statistics are sad !!! Tens and hundreds of millions of Reichsmarks, pounds, dollars (this is at that rate) were swollen for the construction of the LC, the construction of the LC put a heavy burden on the industry of developed countries - and what is the return?

    Sheltering these "mammoths" from the enemy and serving was also extremely expensive and troublesome ... Oleg, give us statistics on how much money was spent on equipping the docks and on the defense of the places where the LK was based ??? How many cover ships were involved in operations involving LC ??? How many of these same cover ships were sunk by the enemy in the performance of the tasks of guarding the "sea monsters" ??? But all these resources (money, people, fuel, materials, LC cover ships, LC cover aircraft) could be spent on other more important directions ...

    Conclusion - the design and construction of the LC was based on the old concept of linear naval battle - which reigned for centuries in the admiral’s heads. But three things completely destroyed this strategy - the plane, the submarine and the rocket ...
    Gigantism is peculiar to people - this was especially evident in the first half of the 20th century (super-tank, super-gun, super-ship, super-plane) - but more does not mean better !!! And the whole world moved away from the concept of creating an armored fleet by the beginning of the 50s for two reasons: the 1st is extremely expensive and inefficient and the 2nd rapid development of aviation and missile weapons turned large surface ships simply into large targets and no more ... So in the end - one of two things - either the whole world is wrong, or Kaptsov is wrong ...))
    And about floating platforms and batteries - LCs weren’t built for that !!! But at least some sense ...
    1. Operator
      Operator 26 November 2015 12: 36 New
      0
      A railway battery consisting of eight 305 mm cannons is three orders of magnitude cheaper than a floating battery in the form of a battleship.

      Those. instead of one battleship, several thousands railway artillery installations and effectively defend the bases of cruisers, destroyers and submarines (Odessa, Tallinn, Sevastopol, Novorossiysk, Leningrad, Murmansk).
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 26 November 2015 14: 17 New
        +1
        Quote: Operator
        A railway battery consisting of eight 305 mm cannons is three orders of magnitude cheaper than a floating battery in the form of a battleship.

        Ahem ... there are questions. The cost of one conveyor TM-3-12 at the end of the 30s was 1 rubles. But this is only the conveyor itself.
        Bragin has a letter from the head of the Naval Forces of the Red Army Orlov to NPO Voroshilov regarding the conversion of three 12 "/ 52 guns of the open battery of the Krasnoflotsky Fort into conveyors, in which
        The cost of such three-gun batteries (with all equipment) is estimated at 78 million rubles

        LK Ave. 23 with 3x3x16 "was estimated at 1 million rubles.

        And now do not forget to add to the cost of the batteries themselves the cost of the equipment of the railway network, positions and bases. The same TM-3-12 had an extremely narrow range of GN angles and had to regularly fire from concrete bases, and as a backup option, from railway tracks of a certain radius (but this option was suitable only for work on stationary targets).
        The cost of one base for two three-gun batteries is 4,69 million rubles.

        And most importantly - all of our large-caliber railways were made from trunks already available. That is, their maximum number was determined by the stocks of 12 "and 14" barrels available for the fleet and industry, net of spare ones. With the new trunks 12 "-16" for the same pr. 69 and pr. 23 the industry had problems.
        1. Kvazar
          Kvazar 26 November 2015 14: 20 New
          0
          You forgot to indicate that the guns were not new) And this is the price of the alteration)
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 26 November 2015 15: 33 New
            0
            Quote: Kvazar
            You forgot to indicate that the guns were not new) And this is the price of the alteration)

            I wrote that the trunks were taken "out of stock".
            But you are right - this point is really worth noting especially. How much the new 12 "barrel will cost, taking into account all the vicissitudes of mastering it in production at the Barricades, it’s hard to imagine.
      2. Kvazar
        Kvazar 26 November 2015 14: 18 New
        +1
        for starters on the railway battery, ONE cannon) And this is a whole train and a whole system of towers for parking of air defense security systems. Only the crew of the railway battery is several hundred people). Plus, you forget that you need to build special branches and places of fire. From the wheels only straight and plus minus 5 degrees. A full battery is a huge farm that does not move to the right place, costs a lot of money, is not very rigorous, and requires several thousand people trained personnel. Yes, cheaper (trunks for them were taken from disassembled battleships and armadillos, like warheads). But there is no efficiency. Not about any thousands of batteries for one battleship speech. A maximum of 2-3 and then if you use the backlog from the analysis of old ships. If it is good, if two systems of 8 guns per instead of 1 battleship.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 26 November 2015 15: 49 New
          0
          Quote: Kvazar
          for starters on the railway battery, ONE cannon) And this is a whole train and a whole system of towers for parking of air defense security systems.

          Umm ... actually, in mzhdab from 3 to 4 guns.
          Battery No. 6 - 3 TM-1-14
          Battery No. 7 - 3 TM-2-12
          Battery No. 8 - 3 TM-2-12
          Battery No. 9 - 3 TM-3-12
          Battery No. 11 - 3 TM-1-14
          Batteries No. 12, 16, 17, 18, 19 - 3-4 TM-1-180
          Quote: Kvazar
          Plus, you forget that you need to build special branches and places of fire. From the wheels only straight and plus minus 5 degrees.

          Only for guns with a caliber of more than 8 ". TM-1-180 had circular firing - it was only necessary to swing back and extend the stops.
        2. Operator
          Operator 26 November 2015 15: 51 New
          0
          “The TM-1-14, TM-2-12, and TM-3-12 batteries had a three-gun composition and did not differ much in structure. Three gun conveyors were included in the battery, three wagons — shell cellars, three wagons — charging cellars, 3 cars of the power plant, one car - a battery station and one - two steam locomotives of the "E" series. " - The Military Parade magazine, May-June 1994, article "Railway artillery installations".

          If the cost of one gun mount TM-3-12 is 78: 3 = 26 million rubles, and the cost of 9 guns is 1500 million rubles, then the number of gun mounts for the same price is approximately 60 units, which is equivalent to 6 battleships used as floating batteries.

          The cost of 60 concrete bases for the firing positions of gun mounts is several times cheaper than the cost of coastal structures for basing 6 battleships.
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 26 November 2015 16: 46 New
            +1
            Quote: Operator
            If the cost of one gun mount TM-3-12 is 78: 3 = 26 million rubles, and the cost of 9 guns is 1500 million rubles, then the number of gun mounts for the same price is approximately 60 units, which is equivalent to 6 battleships used as floating batteries.

            Heh heh heh ... first of all, 1 million is the cost of a launcher with 500 "guns (TM-16-3 carries a 12" / 12 gun).
            And also with air defense and the ability to move at a speed of 18-20 knots to almost anywhere on the coast, not covered by ice. Including - and behind enemy lines.
            I would like to see the support of the tactical landing 100-150 km from the front line by the forces of the railway battery. smile

            Secondly, 78 million is the cost of a battery with "free" guns. Why do you think the USSR made only 6 TM-1-14 and 3 TM-3-12? The correct answer is that the "free" trunks are over. One barrel at the position / on the ship / at the installation, plus spare barrels for replacement ... and there were not so many “extra” barrels for TM.
            How much is the trunk? It is known that the "net" cost of 1 Sevastopol-type LC was 29,4 million rubles, and together with the second set of trunks and a spare BC, it was already 36,8 million rubles.
            Quote: Operator
            The cost of 60 concrete bases for the firing positions of gun mounts is several times cheaper than the cost of coastal structures for basing 6 battleships.

            And the cost of laying the web of railway tracks with strict requirements for radii, slopes and profiles? And the land occupied by these roads in the base area?
            1. Operator
              Operator 26 November 2015 17: 34 New
              0
              It was a question of replacing the Soviet battleships used as floating batteries with railway gun mounts. In the history of the RKKF, there are no other known methods for the combat use of LCs, in which their ability to "travel at a speed of 18-20 knots to almost any point on the coast not covered by ice would be involved."

              The number of "extra" large-caliber barrels for use in gun mounts is equal to at least the number of barrels manufactured in the Republic of Ingushetia / USSR from 1914 to 1941 a year. If you didn’t spend money on the construction of LCs, there would be 60 times more trunks.

              The cost of one barrel with a spare BC is (36,8-29,4): 9 = 0,8 million rubles, which is a small fraction of the cost of the gun mount (26 million rubles).

              Railway gun mounts of the defense of naval bases do not need to build a railway web tracks - it is enough to build access roads to artillery positions (according to the number of gun mounts) in the form of deadlocks from public roads, which are already in the railway nodes Odessa, Sevastopol, Novorossiysk, Tallinn and Leningrad. The technical conditions for the construction of access roads are simpler than the technical specifications for the construction of public roads.
              1. Scraptor
                Scraptor 26 November 2015 17: 42 New
                +1
                and they’ll go by sea to shell an enemy fleet or shore, and with the protection of the Far East and the Northern Sea Route, how?
                1. Operator
                  Operator 26 November 2015 19: 45 New
                  0
                  Give an example of navigating the Soviet LK by sea to shell an enemy fleet or shore, with the protection of the Far East and the Northern Sea Route.
                  1. Scraptor
                    Scraptor 26 November 2015 19: 49 New
                    0
                    there are German ones ...
                    1. Operator
                      Operator 26 November 2015 21: 49 New
                      -1
                      Just a cruiser, and even that German (Admiral Scheer, 1942 year). By the way, the attempt of this cruiser to fight with the Soviet coastal artillery in the port of Dixon (two siege 152-mm guns of the WWII period) ended with an anecdotal result (for a cruiser with six latest 283-mm guns).

                      But we are talking only about the RKKF - the futility of the LC and the usefulness of coastal artillery.
                      1. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 26 November 2015 22: 56 New
                        0
                        Well then the cruiser was enough then ... Actually 1943. Then came to rent an English battleship.
              2. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 27 November 2015 11: 20 New
                0
                Quote: Operator
                It was a question of replacing the Soviet battleships used as floating batteries with railway gun mounts. In the history of the RKKF, there are no other known methods for the combat use of LCs, in which their ability to "travel at a speed of 18-20 knots to almost any point on the coast not covered by ice would be involved."

                Well, how are you going to support the Kerch landing or the landing in Sudak with the help of wait?
                Quote: Operator
                The number of "extra" large-caliber barrels for use in gun mounts is equal to at least the number of barrels manufactured in the Republic of Ingushetia / USSR from 1914 to 1941 a year. If you didn’t spend money on the construction of LCs, there would be 60 times more trunks.

                It is only in a computer toy that you can buy something else with one click of the mouse you save money.
                In life, the USSR had one plant engaged in the production of large-caliber barrels. And work on the production of new guns (and the modernization of the plant) began only in the late 30s - for the new LK and LKR. Prior to this - only the use of old stocks.
                None of the guns of the new development were not mass-produced - only prototypes were completed.

                Not in vain, even in 1935, to create another 12 "/ 52 rail battery, Dukelsky and Orlov proposed disarming the open battery of the Krasnoflotsky fort.
                Quote: Operator
                Railway gun mounts of the defense of naval bases do not need to build a railway web tracks - it is enough to build access roads to artillery positions (according to the number of gun mounts) in the form of deadlocks from public roads, which are already in the railway nodes Odessa, Sevastopol, Novorossiysk, Tallinn and Leningrad.

                Do you propose to put all waiting for Sevastopol on the only main and only circular branch? belay
                How will you maneuver the AU? And how to pull them out from under the shelling - one weapon at a time, one by one?
                Do you remember the composition of the TM-3-12 battery? 3 combat trains of 17 cars and platforms, plus a mobile train of 18 cars and platforms.
                Quote: Operator
                The technical conditions for the construction of access roads are simpler than the technical specifications for the construction of public roads.

                You did not forget - what will move along these paths?
                Let me remind you that these are 20-axis conveyors weighing 350-410 tons and a length of 15-20 meters.
                I doubt that the technical specifications for the construction of access roads for such equipment is simpler. what
                1. Operator
                  Operator 27 November 2015 16: 03 New
                  0
                  LK participated only in artillery support for the landing of the Sudak landing (January 1942), after which it disappeared into the open spaces of the Black Sea, and the remaining landing without support was destroyed.
                  Much more useful for the landing would be the constant support from the cruisers and destroyers, who were forced to cover the LC.
                  Those. the refusal to build an aircraft in favor of railway gun mounts would automatically increase the number of ships allocated to support landing.

                  The presence of enterprises with certain production capacities is not a constant. If they invested not in expanding shipyards for the construction of launchers, but in developing artillery enterprises, the number of barrels of large-caliber artillery would be sufficient.

                  Railroad a junction, by definition, is not the only ring road.

                  The most important thing in a multi-axis conveyor is the axial load, which is within 20 tons, which allows you to move along access roads with low bearing capacity.
    2. Urfin
      Urfin 26 November 2015 12: 43 New
      0
      Just imagine the hypothetical battle of two TF-38s (with the squad during the battle in Leyte Gulf) between themselves. What role would the most tenacious and stable ships play with equality in aviation? What is stronger aircraft carriers + battleships or aircraft carriers + cruisers?
      But the fact that such a battle of equal forces could not happen already during is another matter. But before the formation of a close-knit allied bloc, it was quite reasonable to assume the possibility of such a battle: the USA, England and France completely opposed each other. and such weapons as intercontinental missiles and super-dreadnacks are built, including for confrontation - the threat of unacceptable losses. For dreadnoughts, this is expressed in the fact that the sea (trade) war becomes very expensive for its participants, which holds back both sides.
      And at a cost and other things. The "payback" of some weapons is not entirely obvious. for example, the same Tirpitz - how much was spent by the Germans on him and how many allies on his neutralization and attempts to destroy.
      1. Scraptor
        Scraptor 26 November 2015 13: 01 New
        +2
        This was spent on fighting the submarine (with all the flaws of this doctrine ascertained by 1943), 1 to 80 was spent and Tirpitz received a torpedo from the K-21 just stood there and then it was spitfires flying to control it for the time being - you can calculate the costs of repairing it and gasoline for them.
        1. Kvazar
          Kvazar 26 November 2015 14: 05 New
          0
          the truth is you forgot the whole formation of ships that guarded him throughout the war .... and went to sea on alarm)
          1. Scraptor
            Scraptor 26 November 2015 17: 51 New
            0
            the "whole compound" (you were already answered below about its composition) guarded the "whole" (or half) of the German linear fleet lol
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 26 November 2015 14: 41 New
          0
          Quote: Scraptor
          It was spent on 1943 to 1 in the fight against submarines (for all the deficiencies of this doctrine that became clear by 80)

          Hehehehe ... actually, most of the forces of the PLO could be used for another purpose. The same EME, FR and AVE were quietly used in landing operations for air defense and support for the landing. And the British AVE even bombed the Tirpitz.
          Quote: Scraptor
          and Tirpitz received a torpedo from K-21 just stood

          Hit torpedoes in the “Tirpitz” is not recorded. Neither in the Rosselshprung documents, nor during carcass inspections.
          Sever Marine Command July 20, 1942
          To guide the war on the sea copy number 1
          For information: Fleet / BdS Commander copy No. 2
          Admiral of the Arctic Ocean copy number 3
          Cruiser Commander Copy No. 4 VF Copy No. 5
          KTV copies No. 6,7,8

          The final report of the operation "Knight's move"

          15) On 20.06, a message came from radio intelligence that the fleet was spotted by an enemy submarine at 17.00 in AC7219 square on a 45g course. A little later, a message came that the enemy submarine noticed him at 18.16 in the quarter. AC7350 on a course of 80g. From both of these messages it followed that the Navy did not come out from Nordkin, but from Rolvso. Early unmasking of the operation and direction of movement were evident from both of their submarine reports.

          21) Conclusions: The operation had to be interrupted due to early detection by the enemy. It was argued that even with such a far-reaching enemy cover group, the success of the operation is possible only if the exit goes unnoticed, or you have to take a lot of risk.
          1. Scraptor
            Scraptor 26 November 2015 17: 56 New
            0
            it was necessary to guard convoys and hunts for submarines

            after the hit there was a repair, then there were still hits
            Quote: Alexey RA
            according to Rosselshprung, ... or you’ll have to take a big risk.

            maybe even on "Deutsche Wochenschau" will you teach us the history of the Second World War?
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 27 November 2015 12: 51 New
              0
              Quote: Scraptor
              after the hit there was a repair, then there were still hits

              After Lunin’s attack, the Tirpitz continued to move. And he turned away only after 4,5 hours - after the number of radio messages intercepted by the German RR about the detection of the squadron became critical: after K-21, the detection of Tirpitz was reported by our reconnaissance aircraft, and then the British P-54 submarine.

              Repair "Tirpitz" was only at the end of October - repair pen steering. 3,5 months after the attack of Lunin.
              1. Scraptor
                Scraptor 27 November 2015 13: 27 New
                0
                That is, you continue to teach us the Second World War on Rosselshsprung and Deutsche Wochenschau?
    3. Kvazar
      Kvazar 26 November 2015 13: 19 New
      +2
      Again stamps) About "about the possessed Furer" burn yet. Smart enemy called demons is something. That’s how a politician made a lot of mistakes, the result is that everyone knows his little asshole in storage in Moscow as a trophy. Return? The capture of Norway, the sinking of Hood, the constant threat to communications in the Atlantic (to escort convoys each time it was necessary to allocate a battleship whenever possible) Keep a huge fleet on patrol (and they eat a lot of babos). As the Germans joked, we shoot 380mm gold. Because of one, the Tirpitz had to keep a whole fleet compound and pay for higher insurance rates. If you have 10 mammoths (at the base), and to contain and stop the threat, you need 100 mammoths, half of which must be kept at sea, then your expenses per year will be 15 times that of the enemy (since it’s very expensive and ruinously). Could not be spent. Because the threat of a sea without a fleet would be such that resources would be needed many times more. Not quite so, to sink a rocket with a conventional warhead battleship of the WWII you need 7-10 granite rockets in which it was inherently drowned in the TTZ .. ,,. True, a 7-ton rocket weighs and it needs a guidance satellite that monitors one target for 48 days in total .... then the satellite must be launched. No, both are right. Modern boats can be booked as they can (there is not enough displacement) Large battleships which can be normally booked as there is no money .... At the cost of the modern battleship will cost as an aircraft carrier with aviation (20 lard greens) and the size will be no less (100-140.000t). And he still needs a bunch of boats ..... An aircraft carrier is a more flexible tool, and which is easier to upgrade. And which has a cheaper long arm. In the event of a local war against the Papuans, the navel will burst with cruise missiles (from 2 green leaves apiece for us and 7 for them). 200 missiles will already come out 400 lyam greens if ours, and 1.4 if them ... Plus they can skip SBCH which is not nice ..... Yes the German carries a 150mm reservation)
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 26 November 2015 14: 56 New
        +2
        Quote: Kvazar
        Keep a huge fleet on patrol (and they eat a lot of babos, a huge number). As the Germans joked, we shoot 380mm gold. Because of one, the Tirpitz had to keep a whole fleet compound and pay for higher insurance rates.

        The “whole fleet formation” actually turned into one combat-ready LC, one LC undergoing a training course, and Rodney, an ever-repairing one. Plus one aircraft carrier.

        In fact, the Tirpitz guarded 1 combat-ready LC and 1 AB.
      2. Selevc
        Selevc 26 November 2015 15: 38 New
        +1
        Quote: Kvazar
        Again stamps) About "about the possessed Furer" burn yet. A smart enemy called demons is that t

        Oleg what stamps? How else to name a man who killed millions of people and brought only evil even to his own country, not to mention others?
        What other smart enemy? The Germans screwed up a lot for the whole war - but the most important strategic mistakes were made that led to the defeat of Germany ... The Germans allowed themselves to be very stupid to develop and introduce a lot of new types of weapons right during the war (this applies to everything from a storm trooper to battleships). .. And as a result, a more organized adversary simply crushed Germany with a number of simpler, cheaper, yet effective weapons !!!
        Even such industrial monsters as the United States converted large civilian vessels into escort aircraft carriers - because it is cheap, fast and efficient ... And Germany could not even build one aircraft carrier !!! Well, what if it even built it and if it was the most presamy? The Germans simply did not have the experience of using aircraft carriers that the allies had ... And this experience does not appear quickly ..
        Quote: Kvazar
        The capture of Norway, the sinking of Hood, the constant threat to communications in the Atlantic (to escort convoys each time it was necessary to allocate a battleship whenever possible) Keep a huge fleet on patrol (and they eat a lot of babos). As the Germans joked, we shoot 380mm gold.

        Just do not attribute it all to the actions of the LC !!! The tasks of securing maritime convoys to Norway could well have been successfully solved by joining BC with a rank of less than a battleship ...
        The underwater German submarines did much more damage to the communications of the Anglo-Americans - this is perfectly demonstrated by comparing the tonnage of sunken vehicles by surface and submarine ships of the Wehrmacht ... But this is not even the case - England could not be brought to its knees even in the most difficult months of the war, even with the most dense sea ​​blockade !!!
        1. Scraptor
          Scraptor 26 November 2015 17: 43 New
          +1
          he was not a man and was really possessed, Erdogan and Psaki by the way look like him ...
  • Kvazar
    Kvazar 26 November 2015 12: 54 New
    +1
    The author forgot about Yamato and a 14 or 21 torpedo which they planted in him was once again considered laziness. Why does the author bring battleships and battleships? Everything is very simple. For protection, you need volume and displacement. You can recall the cruiser Stalingrad, a section of which, when testing heavy first-generation anti-ship missiles, the testers and the survivability struggle team did not leave ..... and suddenly no one was hurt in dozens of explosions. I also recommend that the author find the tests of the Reich aircraft carrier after the war (the zepelin seems to have forgotten the name). Although its penetration was not very thick, it was hollowed out for a long time and boring and all without result, with a hint of "drowned." Despite the fact that there was no team.
  • barbiturate
    barbiturate 26 November 2015 13: 11 New
    +1
    Article plus, I agree with Oleg.
  • Sahalinets
    Sahalinets 26 November 2015 13: 14 New
    0
    Author, would you at least read something besides murzilka! The armor protection in the loss of the British under Jutland had nothing to do with it! They died from an unsuccessful design of the supply of shells when a force of flame struck directly into the cellar. Hood is also an idiotic example. Hood died as a result of a super-successful hit by the Germans, this happens in exceptional cases. Further and disassemble laziness. The level of the student.
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 26 November 2015 13: 31 New
      0
      Not everything is so simple - he, being a "liberal", makes schoolchildren out of other here. bully
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 26 November 2015 15: 28 New
      +2
      Quote: Sahalinets
      Author, would you at least read something besides murzilka! The armor protection in the loss of the British under Jutland had nothing to do with it! They died from an unsuccessful design of the supply of shells when a force of flame struck directly into the cellar.

      In fact, the armored protection of the British LCR in losses all the same with it. For both Invincible and Indefatigable died after German 28-cm shells pierced the turret’s armor or both armored decks. LKR "Indefatigable" no ultra-protected design for the supply of shells would help at all - the shell exploded at the cellars of the Civil Code.

      The reason is simple - inertia of thinking. The initial objectives of the LCR RN were reconnaissance in combat; the destruction of enemy cruisers operating on communications; support for light fleet forces - small cruisers and destroyers. That is, the strongest opponent of the LKR could at best be an armored KR. And all LCR up to Hood was the development and improvement of the original “invincibles” built under this concept.

      But the problem is that gradually the concept of using LCR changed - they began to be considered as a means of ensuring the action of linear forces. And as their main task, the beginning of the squadron battle and the "head coverage" of the enemy column began to appear. That is, the original concept of “beat the weakest” has changed to “a fight is possible even with the enemy’s LC”. But the LKR design remained the same, optimized for “catching up and stumbling the weakest”! belay
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN 26 November 2015 21: 10 New
    0
    That is, KR 1144, like armored platforms for missile systems, has the right vector for reconstruction and modernization. When the USSR built 3 sides. At least 2 of them must replenish the Navy and complement the "Peter".
  • Taoist
    Taoist 26 November 2015 21: 51 New
    +3
    Again Kaptsov and again about battleships ... More precisely, about "what are all the idiots that refused to build these mastodons" ...

    understandably and naturally. Next, pulling the owl on the globe.

    Why pulling? Yes, because:
    a) For some reason, the original postulate implies that "only the complete destruction of the ship is taken into account" - which to put it mildly not so ... Moreover, the factor of "golden hit" is absolutely not taken into account
    But everything is very simple - the battleship is a "very large animal" - and as practice shows, it’s difficult to put several tens of thousands of tons of displacement to the bottom. But at the same time, the amount of dangerous cargo on the warship is also huge ... and then pure play of chance - will the enemy’s shell get into that very “needle eye” where its power will be supported by the ship’s own ammunition ... The British LCR would be sunk under Jutland if Wouldn’t the catastrophic defect of the cellars and the propensity of English gunpowder to detonate? Not a fact ... It is quite possible that they would also have taken dozens of shells into their gut and would have remained afloat ...
    But now, with the development of guided weapons and the growth of their power, it is much easier for us to guarantee not an accidental but aimed hit in this vulnerable place ... But it will certainly be on any ship ... Bismarck’s magnificent armor did not save from accidentally getting where the armor was could not? And that’s ... finite. A ship that has lost combat effectiveness in a naval battle is tantamount to drowning it ... And then a matter of luck ... where exactly will it be "squeezed" - if Bismarck is apart from the base then the khan is guaranteed ... If like Marat or the battleships of Pearl Harbor in his native port - then most likely they will repair it and put it into operation ... (almost everything can be repaired ...)

    So this collection does not prove or illustrate anything ... Besides the fact that a warship is not only weapons of armor and speed ... but also such a difficult algorithmized thing as luck ... (or bad luck) ;-)
  • Litsvin
    Litsvin 26 November 2015 22: 46 New
    0
    Quote: qwert
    One can argue with Oleg Kaptsov .... but not in this case hi All right. And then we are accustomed to represent the American battleships with the perfection of security, and the Japanese, German and other European ships are somehow wretched. But no. The history of their sinking shows that they were very stable warships, at least no worse than their Zaokensky colleagues

    You are right, only the word “no worse” needs to be replaced with “100%” with 34% certainty. The German "Bismarck" in TOTAL qualities were the best battleships in the world. A kind of "marine" T-2 or "air" IL-2. I emphasize "ON COMPLIANCE". It is a fact. Those from the "experts" who say that, for example, the German "Bismarck" was a wretched man himself, who saw a warship in the "television", for example, in the essentially stupid propaganda Soviet film "Sailors". Probably from there and knowledge. “Yamato” - according to two most important parameters - the hull structure and artillery of the main caliber in general is a masterpiece of the “battleship branch” of warships of the world. And the American “rattles-battleships” are something reminiscent of American cars — the body size is beyond reason, the engines are designed to “process” gasoline into CO40, roll in corners, and some kind of non-revolving coffins made of tin. And the fact that the reservation of third-generation American battleships (45-60 years) corresponded to numbers only on paper, I hope I do not need to tell anyone from the "experts". The armor of the main armored belts was “at least a matchbox thinner” than the data stated in the technical specifications, cleverly thrown by the Americans to the Japanese “spies” through a desu launched through two channels - through England (supposedly “got” by German agents - yeah, right now, the British slipped it) and through Australia (in the same dexterous way). By the way, that you knew. Back in the 80s, ordinary students of our Soviet shipbuilding universities "calculated" the design of various specific ships of the world. There were no “charlatan-shamanic” reasoning as in modern forums of “experts” in their work. There was pure mathematics and physics (from the law of Archimedes to applied hydrodynamics). The ship's design and all other data necessary for the calculations were reliably known. So, having “calculated” the same type of “Iowa” at the time of entry into service, our shipbuilders came to the conclusion that with the declared reservation, the ship should sit in the water 90-29,5 cm deeper than the actual draft. Like this. And then the Americans, Americans .... "Shaize", floating on the surface of the water, who did not meet worthy, prepared rivals in an honest battle "on equal terms", that is what the "American battleships" are. I myself know what large surface ships are, I gave XNUMX years to the “former Navy of the former USSR”.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 27 November 2015 13: 40 New
      +2
      Quote: Litsvin
      “Yamato” - according to two most important parameters - the hull structure and artillery of the main caliber in general is a masterpiece of the “battleship branch” of warships of the world.

      Yep ... Egyptian pyramids, Great Wall of China and battleship "Yamato" (C)
      Quote: Litsvin
      And the American “rattles-battleships” are something reminiscent of American cars - the body size is beyond reasonable limits, the engines are designed to “process” gasoline into CO2, roll in corners, and some kind of non-revolving coffins made of tin.

      But they were built as many as 10 pieces. Against the two built Yamato. And the Yankees were not afraid to send new LCs into battle, even under the most unfavorable conditions for them. While the Khashir fleet was anchored.
      Quote: Litsvin
      And then the Americans, Americans .... "Shaize", floating on the surface of the water, who did not meet worthy, prepared rivals in an honest battle "on equal terms", that is what the "American battleships" are.

      According fair fight on equal terms - this, please, to the faithful, into the Battletech universe. smile
      Any commander who takes care of his subordinates at any cost will seek superiority over the enemy. And if the enemy started a war and did not prepare for it, then he himself is to blame.

      So you and our victories of 1945 are dishonest - after all, we too did not meet worthy, prepared rivals in fair fight "on equal terms".
      1. Litsvin
        Litsvin 28 November 2015 13: 34 New
        0
        Your text is not marked out - this is not about the size / displacement / our Peobed 1945. It's about the design of the ships. Do not grab other conversation topics. Also refers to "007" - swim more than 50 years. Our battleship “Petropavlovsk” could also have “sailed 100 years” together with the cruiser “Aurora” if it hadn’t died on mines and if we had won in the REV. These amerkovsovskie banks and therefore float because the United States won the war. The Japanese would have won - they would have sailed “Yamaty” with “Musashi” for a couple, and for another 100 years they would have sailed “in concrete” as “Mikasa” ... The gentlemen’s speech here, in the article, is not about victories / defeats, but about “engineering” and iron. "
  • metallic
    metallic 27 November 2015 15: 18 New
    +1
    I still did not understand what the author wanted to say in this article? Need to urgently build battleships?
  • okroshka79
    okroshka79 27 November 2015 16: 06 New
    +1
    Quote from the author’s article: "... And do not ask stupid questions." Still, I dare to ask a "stupid" question: Are you actually smart yourself?
  • mvg
    mvg 27 November 2015 16: 31 New
    0
    Indeed, it’s only when discussing an article from O. Kaptsov that you will find such a motley crew of critics .. Hand on heart, 4-5 people who either read the topic or read something .., 10-12 playeroff battleship 's .. these generally fly away .. wink I won’t call by name, I don’t want to offend .. although I hate unprofessionalism in life .. and the rest are just readers .. looking for familiar letters ..
    Oleg’s obstinacy should be turned into a useful thread .. It would be much more interesting, from my point of view, to read the options for the development of battles, with one or another maneuver .. Midway, Jutland, etc. than to measure, "who is thicker."
    PS: Once again, I draw attention to the fact that Kaptsov’s article is the most discussed, while Oleg is a master at juggling cards in the deck ..
    1. Taoist
      Taoist 27 November 2015 16: 51 New
      0
      So therefore, what is being discussed is that "cheating" ...
      "And those who will cheat, we will beat in the face, in the impudent red face ..." (c) bully
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 November 2015 17: 14 New
      0
      Quote: mvg
      It would be much more interesting, from my point of view, to read the options for the development of battles, with one or another maneuver ..

      So then to us, on alternative histories :))) Here, real and not probabilistic events are still discussed :))
    3. The comment was deleted.
  • Achtaba1970
    Achtaba1970 27 November 2015 23: 04 New
    0
    And the British are to blame for everything, as always.
    Not only that, in 1982 in the South Atlantic they missed almost all Exocets with their defective air defense systems, the Skyhawks bombed them with free-falling bombs and the Argentine cruiser General Belgrano drowned them with torpedoes.
    Now think, argue until you turn blue, what would happen if the British fired on him with Exocetons or Harpoons, could he perform a combat mission (with his nose torn off, for example) or he would also drown and how many missiles were needed for this.
    But seriously, I really like these disputes, you can read the comments of smart, professional people. This is good in.
  • sergevl
    sergevl 28 November 2015 11: 40 New
    0
    Surprisingly, the British battlecruiser Lyon received approximately the same number (12) of hits from more powerful 305-mm shells, but it didn’t leave the battle. As a result, the British battlecruiser, having much weaker reservations, withstood the “hellfire” no worse than a superdreadnought. Moreover, if you “ride on top”, .............. “Lion”, unlike “Worspite”, did not lose either speed (up to 16 knots) or control (at “Worspite” the steering wheel jammed, causing the ship to become uncontrollable and rolled on the German dreadlocks, well, at least they managed to quickly


    Lyon got hit by landmines. Actually, the shooting in the German fleet was conducted by land mines - shopping mall. more explosives, stronger effect from hits and more visible. But the German hit the Lyon with land mines and after shooting - as a result, a fire on Lyon.
  • kuz363
    kuz363 1 December 2015 17: 16 New
    0
    It is strange why Russia claims to be a maritime power? With the exception of the naval wars with Turkey, everyone else was just a failure. The defense of the Crimea in 1854, Tsushima, the blocking of the fort in the Baltic and the Black Sea in the Second World War, well, like all the failed battles. Of course, the battle given by the author cannot be compared. And true sea powers are the USA, Japan, Germany, England. Well, maybe France and Italy.
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 1 December 2015 18: 37 New
      0
      All these “greats” ended badly, the United States alone with their Pearl Harbor is still in the queue ...
      The Russians failed only Tsushima, by universal efforts for the sake of, including the banal soaking of gunpowder in shells by the quartermasters, that is - sabotage.
  • Glad
    Glad 23 December 2015 16: 29 New
    0
    Quote: Dart2027
    A 180km projectile is the same rocket, only a small one

    That's what this is all about - WWII level artillery is really inferior to PRK in everything, but with the development of technology, the cannons can become the main weapon for the Navy.

    So after all, the same problems will emerge as for missiles (target designation, for example), but only in a more rigid form, since the projectile has less space for equipment than the missile.
  • Glad
    Glad 24 December 2015 04: 57 New
    0
    Quote: Per se.
    The crew and the most important aircraft units are covered with titanium armor up to 17 mm thick.
    Despite the doubts of some experts about the advisability of such protection on a modern aircraft (a DShK machine gun bullet pierces 20 mm of armored steel from a distance of 500 m


    Well, yes, this value of armor penetration for DShK walks around the Internet. It would seem that the Su-34 is doomed when fired from a machine gun of 12,7 mm caliber.
    However, as always, there are nuances. If the armor is shielded, that is, it does not consist of one, but of 2 armor plates, spaced a certain distance and with a total thickness of 17 mm, then such protection will not be penetrated by bullets of 12,7 mm caliber. Moreover, when a bullet passes through the structural elements of the aircraft (skin, partitions, pipelines, units, etc.), the bullet often turns around. That is, the axis of the bullet deviates more from the tangent to the trajectory than usual. And this leads to a change in the angles between the bullet and the armor, and these changes do not increase the armor penetration of the bullet.
    Something like that...